Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(HP) 96

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Dinesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Revision No.84 of 2012
Decided on : 04-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent:Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt.

Headnote:
Revision Petition - Criminal Procedure - Section 397, Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 411 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Dinesh Kumar, was convicted under Section 411 IPC for receiving a vehicle, which was allegedly stolen by another accused, Kulbhushan. The prosecution's evidence relied on the testimony of witnesses and recovery of the vehicle, but the key witness did not support the prosecution's case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution was too feeble to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt. The court set aside the judgment of conviction and ordered the discharge of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the petitioner under Section 411 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. In this case, the evidence presented was not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the petitioner were set aside, and the petitioner's bonds were ordered to be discharged.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

PetitionerDinesh Kumar has filed the present revision petition, under Section 397, read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.PC’) against the order dated 13.3.2012, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No.8S/10 of 2010, titled as Dinesh Kumar versus State of H.P.

2. Vide order dated 13.3.2012, the learned appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2009, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Criminal Case No.62/2 of 2009, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Kulbhushan & Another.

3. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.12.2009, as referred to above, learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.

5. The report, under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, has been filed, on the basis of the following facts:

4.1. On 4.4.2009, a copy of Rapat Rojnamcha recorded with Police Post Dhami, was received with Police Station, West Shimla. The said report was lodged by Shri Virender Pal, son of Shri Bala Nand, on the ground that he has a grocery shop at Ganahatti market. They are four brothers. He and his brother Vijay Pal are drivers by profession.

4.2. In the month of September, 2007, the complainant had purchased new Bolero Pick by getting the same financed from Sundram Finance Limited, Solan. The vehicle was registered vide registration No.HP51B1228.

4.3. The complainant, apart from running his business, also used to drive the same. His brother used to drive another vehicle, having registration No.HP631228.

4.4. In the month of December, 2008, one Ashok Kumar, aged about 2530 years, by introducing himself as driver, approached him and shown his driving licence to him, upon which, the complainant apprised him that he does not require the services of the driver. However, he has requested him to provide his mobile number.

4.5. Consequently, said Ashok Kumar has given his mobile number. In the month of March, 2009, Ashok Kumar again requested him to give him the job of driver, but, complainant refused to do so.

4.6. On 5.4.2009, Ashok made a call to him, upon which, the complainant requested him to come to his shop on 6.4.2009. On 6.4.2009, at about 10.0011.00 a.m., Ashok reached at the shop. His driving licence was checked, in which, his name has been entered as Ashok Goyal, Village Chadi, P.O. Gaggal, District Kangra, H.P.

4.7. The driving licence was issued by the authorities at Sonipat and valid till 2011. Thereafter, said Ashok was engaged as driver in the Bolero Pick up. On 7.4.2009, at about 2.00 p.m., Ashok Kumar drove the vehicle No.HP51B1228 to Khalini and from where, he had taken the same to Barotiwala.

4.8. On 7.4.2009, at about 7.307.45 p.m., Virender Pal had telephonically contacted Ashok Kumar, on his mobile No.9418622010 and Ashok Kumar apprised him that after unloading the goods at Barotiwala, he has to load goods from some factory and he will return after 23 days. After 3 days, Ashok did not come back and his phone was found to be switched off.

5. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the case, under Section 411 IPC, against the accused and criminal machinery swung into motion.

6. Accused Kulbhushan, was arrested in case FIR No.88/06, dated 27.5.2006, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, with Police Station, Baijnath, from Chandigarh. Durin