IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 26.08.2025 Pronounced on: 17.09.2025 Pardeep and another ......Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Ms. Monika Jalota, Amicus Curiae for the appellants.

Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

1. For the commission of offence punishable under Sections 379-A read with Section 34 IPC the Appellant No.1 along with his co-accused namely Parveen has been held guilty by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, and both of them sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. Aggrieved of the above mentioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence the present appeal had been preferred by both the convicts. However, with regard to one of the appellant, namely Parveen, the appeal stands abated due to his death, in view of order dated 01.04.2024.

2. The above mentioned verdict against the appellant-accused, hereinafter being referred to as appellant only, pertains to the FIR No.216 dated 18.06.2018, Police Station Nissing, Karnal.

3. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant alleging that the impugned judgment is against the facts as well as law, and that without proper appreciation of facts as well as law a wrong conclusion has been drawn by the learned trial Court. According to appellant the learned trial Court has committed an error of Judgment, when it failed to take note of the discrepancy and defects in the prosecution evidence and erroneously concluded that evidence adduced by the prosecution was good enough to prove charge beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. According to appellant the learned trial Court ignored the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence which requires that the prosecution case is supposed to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. It has been alleged by the appellant that unreliable and doubtful evidence, led by the prosecution, has been believed by the learned trial Court and, therefore, there is need for indulgence and interference of appellate jurisdiction of this Court in the impugned judgment.

4. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts emerging from record are that the above mentioned FIR came into being in response to a complaint submitted by Chotu son of Bahadur, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only. In the above mentioned complaint it was stated by the above named complainant that on 18.06.2018, he was going to market and Ram Kumar was following him. According to complainant, while walking he was talking on his phone and there two young boys came on motorcycle, blocked his way, snatched his motorcycle, attempted an attack with axe like weapon, took away Rs.500/- currency note from his pocket and fled from the spot. It is the case of the prosecution that in response to above mentioned complaint formal FIR in this case was lodged and the investigation taken up.

The investigation of this case was assigned to Sub Inspector Krishan kumar. According to prosecution on receipt of direction for investigation of this case, the above named Sub Inspector arrested the accused Parveen and Pardeep. They were interrogated on 19.06.2018 their disclosure statements were recorded. As per prosecution story, pursuant to their disclosure statements that accused got recovered the stolen mobile phone and the motorcycle used in the commission of crime. The Investigating Officer thereafter completed other usual formalities of investigation.

5. Once the investigation in this case was completed both the accused were sent to trial and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge conducted the trial and passed a judgment of conviction, i.e. impugned judgment.

6. Heard.

7. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent having no nexus, whatsoever, with the commission of crime and that learned trial Court erroneously observed that the allegation