The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the legal provisions of IPC Section 379 and IPC Section 34 to establish the accused's involvement in the theft.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The petitioners herein (for short "accused") faced charge(s) for the offences constituted under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, hence before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Upon the afore drawn charge(s) against the accused, the learned trial Judge recorded findings of conviction, vis-a-vis, all the accused, and, vide order of 28.1.2012 the learned trial Court imposed upon the accused sentence of simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.3000/-, and, upon default(s), if any, of payment(s) of fine, the learned trial Court ordered that the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

3. All the accused became aggrieved from the afore made verdict of conviction and consequent therewith sentence becoming imposed upon each of them, and, obviously instituted a Criminal Appeal bearing No. 11 of 2012 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, Camp at Karsog.

4. The appellate Court through its verdict recorded on 8.6.2012 proceeded to dismiss the appeal preferred before before it, by the accused, and, obviously declined to make any interference with the verdict of conviction, and, the afore consequent therewith sentence(s) as become imposed by the learned trial Court.

5. The accused became aggrieved from the afore concurrent verdict(s), as, become recorded by both the Courts below, and, have instituted the instant petition before this Court.

6. The brief facts of the case are that ASI Sunder Singh alongwith HC Gian Chand, HHC Devi Singh, C Vichater Singh No. 484, HHG Lala Ram No. 6/6-18 and HHG Nnd Lal No. 6/6/97 was on patrolling duty on the intervening night of 17.9.008 and 18.9.2008 at place Dhungru Nallah at Pangna Pehgal Road. A red coloured Indigo car reached on the spot at about 1.20 a.m was stopped by complainant ASI Sunder Singh. Accused Manoj Kumar alias Manoj Kaushal was its driver, and, he was accompanied by accused Bula Ram in the car. The car was without Registration Certificate. Accused Bula Ram apprised the police that for remolding the tyres of tractor which is being brought behind the car, they are going to Sundernagar. A tractor carrying trolley also reached on the spot. Accused Dalip Kumar was driving this tractor. Accused Som Dutt and Ranjan Kumar were also sitting on the tractor. Accused Som Dutt told the police that tractor belongs to him. Documents of the tractor were with Bula Ram. An affidavit showing that original owner Sunil Kumar had sold this tractor to accused Som Dutt was found in these papers. Complainant checked the tractor and trolley. He found that tractor was bearing No. HP-35-B-9310 and trolley was bearing registration No. HP-27-0458. This registration number was written on the Dalla of the trolley which was kept inside the trolley. On inquiry as to why tractor and trolley have different registration numbers, the accused disclosed to the complainant that trolley was parked on the side of the road at Phegal, and, was worth Rs.65,000/-, so they took away (stole) the trolley. During investigation the Investigating Officer seized the vehicle. After completion of the investigation, formal challan under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC was presented before the Court.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has limited his address, before this Court, only with respect to both the Courts below rather committing a grave fallacy in recording concurrent findings of conviction, and, theirs imposing consequent therewith sentences (supra), upon the accused, in as much, as despite PW-7 (Rajesh Thakur), not being recorded as owner in the Registration certificate appertaining to the tractor bearing No. HP-27-0458, yet his being associated in the relevant investigations, by the Investigating Officer. He submits that hence his testification is discardable. He obviously submits that since the stolen property was hence Res Nullius, thereupon, the prosecu