CRR-740-2019 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

108

CRR-740-2019 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 26.3.2019

Deepak

....Petitioner

vs.

State of Haryana

....Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present:

Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner.

****

AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)

1.

This revision has been filed against the order dated 4.2.2019

passed by the Sessions Judge, Panipat and held the petitioner guilty under

Section 411 IPC and awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.

2.

As per the allegations the complainant had parked his

motorcycle outside the premises of Batra Hospital on 2.11.2011 and went

inside. When he came back after 15 minutes, his motorcycle was missing

from there. He lodged a report. Ultimately, during investigation the

petitioner was arrested. It is stated that he made a statement admitting his

guilt wherein he admitted that he had stolen the motorcycle and had

changed the number plate and his disclosure led to the recovery of the stolen

motorcycle. The Trial Court held him guilty and convicted him under

Anuradha

2019.03.29 15:00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR-740-2019 (O&M) 2

Section 379 and 420 IPC for having stolen the motorcycle and putting a

forged number plate and sentenced him to undergone 1 year rigorous

imprisonment. He filed an appeal. The Appellate Court held that that part

of the statement whereby he had admitted to the stealing of the motorcycle

and changing the number plate could not be proved since that statement was

made before the police but that part of the signed statement reflecting the

recovery of the motorcycle could be proved. The Appellate Court further

held that the testimonies of two prosecution witnesses i.e. the IO and the

Head Constable about the factum of recovery of the motorcycle on the basis

of the disclosure made by the petitioner proved beyond doubt. The Court

ultimately found the petitioner guilty and convicted him under Section 411

IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

3.

Learned counsel has argued that firstly motorcycle was

recovered from a open kotha and the owner of that kotha was not examined

by the police. In my opinion, this argument has to fail. PW-4 had stated in

his cross-examination that the kotha was an open kotha and anyone can park

his motorcycle over there.

4.

The second argument raised by learned counsel is that while

putting case to the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C the offence under

Section 411 IPC was not mentioned. Even this argument has to fail. While

Section 313 Cr.P.C was enacted for the purpose of enabling the accused

personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against

him, it was not necessary to inform him about the exact Section under

which he may be found guilty.

5.

Consequently, conviction awarded to the petitioner cannot be

Anuradha

2019.03.29 15:00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CRR-740-2019 (O&M) 3

faulted and sentenced imposed upon the petitioner cannot said to be

excessive in any manner. Petition stands dismissed.

6.

Since the main case has been decided, the pending criminal

miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(AJAY TEWARI)

26.3.2019

JUDGE

anuradha

Whether speaking/reasoned

-

Yes/No

Whether reportable

-

Yes/No

Anuradha

2019.03.29 15:00

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document