IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Jail Revision No. 4 of 2013

Sandeep Singh Negi

….Revisionist

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

....Respondent

Mr. Vikas Anand, Amicus Curiae.

Mr. Subhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Instant revision is preferred against the judgment and

order dated 25.03.2013 passed in Criminal Case No. 250 of 2011,

State Vs. Sandeep Singh Negi by the court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Tehri-Garhwal (for short “the case”). By the impugned

judgment and order, while acquitting the revisionist of the charge

under Sections 457 and 379 IPC. Revisionist, has been convicted

under sub-section 411 IPC and sentenced to two years simple

imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/-. This judgment and order dated

25.03.2013 was further challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2013,

Sandeep Singh Negi Vs. State of Uttarakhand, in the court of District

and Sessions Judge, Tehri-Garhwal (for short “the appeal”). But, in

appeal on 27.05.2013, while upholding the conviction, the sentence

was reduced to one year simple imprisonment, which is also

impugned.

2

2.

Facts are in very short compass. On 07/08.02.2011

certain computer parts were stolen from a Government Primary School

Aleru (dholdhar) (for short “the primary school”). A report of this was

lodged on 09.02.2011 and a case was registered. On 28.02.2011, the

stolen articles, according to the prosecution, were recovered from the

revisionist. After investigation, charge-sheet submitted and proceeding

of the case was instituted.

3.

On 02.05.2011, charge under Sections 379, 457 and 411

IPC were framed against the revisionist to, which he denied and

claimed trial. In fact, according to the prosecution, the primary school

and the office of CRC Ram Gaon were situated in one and the same

building. The report was lodged by the Coordinator CRC, who is PW1

Bhim Lal Mehra. In evidence, prosecution examined seven witnesses,

which includes PW1 Bhim Lal Mehra, Coordinator CRC Ram Gaon

and PW2 Smt. Usha Dobhal, Head Master of the primary school from

where, the articles were stolen. Other prosecution witnesses of

recovery and Investigating Officer were also examined. On

12.03.2013, the revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to him, he was falsely

implicated. It is thereafter by the impugned judgments and order dated

25.03.2013, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced under

Section 411 IPC, as stated hereinabove. The order convicting the

revisionist was challenged in the appeal but, the conviction was upheld

and sentence reduced to one year. Both these judgments are impugned.

3

4.

Learned amicus curiae would argue that the list of

articles stolen from the primary school was never given to the

Investigating Officer because no witness has stated about it. Therefore,

the identification of articles at the time of recovery is doubtful; the

table cloth, which was allegedly recognized by the witnesses at the

time of recovery, as stated in the recovery-memo is also not reliable

because this fact has not been stated by any of the witnesses in the

evidence; according to PW4 Constable Vijay Singh, the articles were

subsequently recovered from a house of a Jagat Singh Negi, but his

role has not been investigated. After raising these factual aspects

learned amicus curiae would also argue that in this case recovery has

not been made under Section 27 of the India Evidence Act, 1872 (for

short “the Act”) and presumption under Section 114 of the Act cannot

be drawn.

5.

On the other hand, learned State counsel would argue that

the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of the

revisionist; witnesses have proved it; recovery-memo was prepared at

the time of recovery. The