Revisional jurisdiction limited; no interference with concurrent convictions absent perversity. Minor witness discrepancies and investigation lapses not fatal where prosecution testimonies reliable and common intention in theft proved by concerted actions.

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioners have filed the present revision against the judgment dated 11.11.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction dated 19.10.2011 and order of sentence dated 22.10.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Shimla (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police filed the charge sheet before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). It was asserted that ASI Shiv Kumar (PW6) and Constable Suresh Kumar (PW4) were on patrolling duty on 19.03.2009. When they reached near the garbage dumper on IGMC road at 2:30 a.m., they saw that one person was putting a tyre into the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-52A-1352 and another person was sitting in the driver’s seat. Both of them ran away after seeing the police. Constable Atma Ram (PW2) and HHG Yashwant Singh (PW3) reached the spot, and they apprehended those persons. They (apprehended persons) revealed their names as Sanjeev Kashyap and Vikrant Thakur. Sanjeev Kashyap also disclosed that he had removed the tyre of a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-10-1204. ASI Shiv Kumar (PW6) prepared the rukka (Ext.PW4/A) and sent it to the police station, where FIR (Ext.PW6/A) was registered. ASI Shiv
Kumar (PW6) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW6/C) and seized the vehicle bearing registration No. HP52A-1352, its key, registration certificate, insurance certificate, and stolen tyre vide memo (Ext.PW2/A). He arrested the accused vide memos (Ext.PW4/B and Ext.PW4/C). The photographs (Ext.PW8/A to Ext.PW8/E) whose negatives are Ext.PA-1 to Ext.PA5 were taken by Constable Lokinder Singh (PW8). ASI Shiv Kumar (PW6) went towards the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-10-1204 and found that its tyre was removed, and the vehicle was put on the jack and rod. The police seized the jack (Ext.P1) and the rod (Ext.P2) vide memo (Ext.PW-1/B). He found four nuts lying on the spot, which were handed over to Dr Suresh Kumar (PW1), the owner of the vehicle. ASI Shiv Kumar (PW6) recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, notice of accusation was put to them for the commission of offences punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses to prove its case. Dr Suresh Kumar (PW1) is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-10-1204 from which the tyre was stolen. Constable Atma Ram (PW2) and HHG Yas