IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 27^th October, 2025 Arshad @ Mohd. Arshad ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

***

M ANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) :-

The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 09.04.2025 and order on quantum of sentence dated 11.04.2025 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Nuh in case arising out of FIR No. 129 dated 08.04.2022 registered under Section 379-A of IPC at Police Station Punhana, whereby the appellant had been held guilty and convicted under Section 379-A of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant-Hakam alleging that on 08.04.2022, he along with his brother-Rihan had gone to vegetable market Punhana to buy vegetables when two youths came on a motor bike and had snatched mobile phone of his brother Rihan. The complainant alleged that he had identified the snatchers as Arshad i.e. the present appellant and Shahid. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The appellant was arrested on 08.04.2022. He was interrogated and suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered the snatched stolen phone as well as the motor bike used by him in the crime. The co-accused initially could not be arrested. He was subsequently detained. He was found to be a juvenile. He faced inquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board, Nuh and had been acquitted on

02.11.2023.

3. On finding a prima facie case for commission of offence punishable under Section 379-A(2) of IPC, the appellant had pleaded not guilty and claimed with trial.

4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses in all besides placing reliance upon certain documents and thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed.

5. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he claimed to be innocent and pleaded false implication.

No defence evidence had been adduced.

6. After addressing arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and appraising the evidence produced on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Nuh held the appellant guilty under Section 379-A(2) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, to pay fine of Rs. 25000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

8. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence are not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the impugned orders, the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence produced on record in a proper manner. The fact that neither the complainant nor his brother Rihan who are the star witnesses of the case, had implicated the appellant in the commission of offence of snatching, had not been appreciated. Both of them had turned hostile and did not identify the appellant as one of the snatchers. The fact that the juvenile in conflict with law was also acquitted by the juvenile justice board had not been taken into consideration. The evidence as to recovery of the alleged snatched mobile phone rested upon the testimonies of the police official interested witnesses which could not be acted and relied upon beyond doubt. Their statements even otherwise were not consistent and hence did not inspire any confidence for proving the guilt for the appellant. The learned trial Court also committed a grave error in holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 379-A of IPC because even if the testimonies of official witnesses were to be believed, no case for com