JUDGMENT

Mr. Manoj Bajaj, J. (Oral):- Convict Satpal Singh @ Sattu has filed the revision petition to challenge the Appellate Court judgment dated 7.12.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala in Crl.A. No.28 of 22.9.2016, whereby it has upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.9.2016, passed by the trial Court.

2. The prosecution arises from case FIR No.5 dated 26.1.2016, registered under Sections 380 and 454 IPC, Police Station Ghagga. The petitioner was awarded sentence of R.I. for 1 year alongwith fine of Rs. 250/- and in default to undergo a further period of SI for 15 days, for the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC and R.I. for 6 months alongwith fine of Rs.250/- and in default to undergo a further period of SI for 15 days, for the offence punishable under Section 448 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. The facts leading to the revision petition are noticed below.

4. On 26.1.2016, Yadwinder Singh made a statement before HC Buta Singh, who alongwith other police officials was present at Bus Stand Kakrala and stated that he was the President of Gurudwara Sahib Committee. On 25.1.2016 at about 5.00 p.m., when he alongwith another Committee Member Karamjit Singh went inside the Gurudwara Sahib for offering prayers, the Granthi of the Gurudwara Sahib was not there as he was bathing. When he went inside, he saw Satpal Singh @ Sattu was committing theft of currency notes from the golak of the Gurudwara Sahib and on seeing them, he ran away from the spot. An attempt was made to catch him, but they failed. He further stated that earlier also, thefts took place from the golak of the Gurudwara Sahib, but they were taking care. On the basis of the above statement, FIR No.5 dated 26.1.2016 under Sections 380 and 454 IPC was registered at Police Station Ghagga, Patiala.

5. After investigation of this case, the final report (challan) under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Court and the learned trial Court after completion of formalities proceeded to frame the charges against the accused under Sections 380, 411 and 454 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. To bring home the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution in all examined 4 witnesses and also adduced documentary evidence. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that he was innocent. It was explained that as there were two groups in Gurudwara Sahib Committee and he refused to support the complainant’s group, therefore, he had been falsely implicated due to party faction.

7. The trial Court after examining the material on record proceeded to hold the accused guilty and imposed the sentence as noticed above. Dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.9.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samana, an appeal was carried out by the convict bearing Appeal No.28 of 22.9.2016. The appeal was decided vide judgment dated 7.12.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the appellate Court has upheld the judgement of conviction without even hearing the counsel for the appellant and heard only the counsel for the State. Learned counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the testimony of PW1 Yadwinder Singh and PW2 Karamjit Singh to contend that the material produced by prosecution was not enough to prove the case against the convict beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. It is further contended that the place of occurrence was well equipped with CCTV camera and the crucial evidence in that regard was not produced before the learned trial Court. It has been further pointed out that the case of the prosecution was lacking certainty, as the charge for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC was also framed against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the ingredients of the offence of theft and