IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.60 of 2013 Reserved on: 30.07.2025 Decided on: 13.08.2025 Mahinder Singh ...…..Petitioner Versus o State of H.P. …..Respondent Coram r The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?^{1 No} For the PeCtitioner: Mr. N.K. Tomar, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 23.02.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 18.3.2011 and order of sentence dated 22.3.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?No 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 presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court fo r the commission of offences punishable under Sectionos 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”). It w as asserted that informant Ravi Dutt (PW1) was working ras a carpenter and was residing at Pabiyana. He and his son Neeraj (PW2) left for their work on 29.11.2009, after locking the room and the kitchen. The informant returned home at 9:00 A.M and found that the locks were broken. The articles in the kitchen and the room were scattered. He found that a pair of silver anklets, a gold nose pin, three coins of silver, and one gas cylinder were missing. The informant suspected Mahinder Singh (the present accused) because he was involved in the commission of a similar offence earlier. He made a complaint to the police. His statement (Ex.PW7/A) was recorded, and F.I.R. (Ex.PA) was registered in the police station. HC Ranjit Singh (PW7) conducted the investigation. He prepared the site plan (Ex.PW7/B). The photographs of the spot (Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/D) were taken. One stone (Ex. P3) and two broken locks (Ex. P1 & Ex. P2) were found on the spot. These were put in a cloth parcel and the parcel was sealed with seal “R”. Seal impression (Ex.PW.7/C)

was taken on a separate piece of cloth. The accused made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW1/A) that he Hcould get the gas cylinder recovered. He led the police to a place where the gas cylinder was concealed. The police recovered the cylinder and seized it vide memo (Ex. PW1/B). The accused produced a pair of silver anklets (Ex. P4), a nose pin (Ex. P5), and two silver 'kangan' (Ex. P6), which were seized vide memo (Ex.PW3/A). Site plan of the place of recovery (Ex.PW7/D) was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after com pletion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufÏcient reason to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 457 & 380 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove its case. Ravi Dutt (PW1) is the informant. Neeraj (PW2) is his son. Jeet Singh (PW3) witnessed the recovery. Naresh (PW4)

took the photographs. HC Roshan Lal (PW5) was working as MHC with whom the case property was deposited. R.S. Cha.uhan (PW6) prepared the challan. HC Ranjeet Singh (PW7) conducted the investigation. H

5. The accused, in his statem ent recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied thoe prosecution's case in its entirety. He did not lead any def ence evidence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the statement of the informant proved that a theft had taken place. The accused made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of a gas cylinder. He also produced the stolen articles.