CRR No.2669 of 2013

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRR No.2669 of 2013 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 10.02.2014

Satnam Singh and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

1.

Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see

the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

Present:

Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Ms. Shivali, AAG, Punjab

for the State.

R.P. Nagrath, J.

The instant revision has been filed against concurrent

findings of the Courts below convicting the petitioners for offence

under Section 382 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

(IPC). The trial Court awarded them the sentence to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each; in

default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for

02 days. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the judgement of

conviction and sentence was dismissed.

Kumar Suresh

2014.02.17 11:41

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRR No.2669 of 2013

2

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 25.8.2007

Gurwant Kaur complainant and her son were returning from Majitha

on a motorcycle at about 6.30 p.m. Then two youths hit their

motorcycle with the motor bike of the complainant and threw them on

the ground. The culprits threatened the complainant with knives to

hand over her ear rings. The complainant handed over her ear rings

to the accused persons. The petitioners were named in the FIR on

an information of an occupant of the mini bus which came towards

that place.

The complainant appeared in the witness box and

identified the petitioners to be culprits. Her statement is corroborated

from the evidence of recovery of ear rings from the possession of

petitioners thus clinching the matter against the petitioners.

The learned Appellate Court observed as under:-

“Recovery of stolen articles i.e. ear rings belonging to the

complainant was recovered from the possession of

accused as proved by SI Deva Singh PW3 and recovery

witness C. Baldev Singh PW4. Both of them have stated

that on the basis of disclosure statement of accused

Major Singh, ear rings were recovered from his

possession vide recovery memo Ex.P-8. The weapons

i.e. daggers Ex.P-15 & Ex.P-16 used by the accused in

the commission of the offence were also recovered from

the possession of the accused on the basis of their

disclosure statements vide recovery memo Ex.P-9 &

Kumar Suresh

2014.02.17 11:41

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRR No.2669 of 2013

3

Ex.P10 as proved by SI Deva Singh PW-3 & C. Baldev

Singh PW-4. Ear rings Ex.P-1 & Ex. P-2 recovered from

the possession of accused were identified by

complainant Gurwant Kaur during trial at the time of

recording her statement. SI Deva Singh, Investigating

Officer also stated in his statement on oath that ear rings

Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 produced in the Court were recovered

from the possession of the accused. According to

Section 114 Illustration (a) of Indian Evidence Act, court

may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen

goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has

received the goods knowing them to be stolen unless he

can account for his possession. Thus, as per the above

said presumption, recovery of stolen goods i.e. ear rings

belonging to complainant Gurwant Kaur from the

possession of accused on 28.8.2007 i.e. soon after the

theft committed on 25.8.2007 it has been proved that it is

the accused who have committed theft as accused could

not account of their possession.

Accused Major Singh from whom recovery of ear rings

was effected stated in his disclosure statement Ex.P-7

that he and Satnam Singh committed theft of said ear

rings on 25.8.2007 near village J