Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Gaurav And Another on 8 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054034
CRM-A-1684-MA-2017 - 1- 2024:PHHC:054034
233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-1684-MA-2017
Date of Decision: 08.04.2024
State of Haryana ...Appellant
vs.
Gaurav and another ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present : Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana.
None for the respondents.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)
1. The State of Haryana has filed the present appeal against the
impugned judgment dated 08.12.2016 passed by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby the respondents have been ordered to be
acquitted of the charge under Sections 379-A and 34 of IPC.
2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the
statement made by Krishna Rani wife of Ram Chander Sehgal, resident of
House No.127, Ram Nagar, Tehsil Camp, Panipat, by moving an application to
Fateh Singh, ASI. The complainant stated that at about 11.00 am on
11.05.2016, she was washing stairs in front of the gate of her house and in the
meantime, two young boys came on motorcycle. The boy, who was driving the
motorcycle, snatched the gold chain weighing 10 grams from her neck.
However, she could not note down the make and the registration number of the
motorcycle. When she raised the noise, both the motor-cyclists fled away from
the spot and she could identify both the assailants/snatchers and she prayed for
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054034
CRM-A-1684-MA-2017 - 2- 2024:PHHC:054034
legal action against the accused. On the basis of the complaint moved by the
complainant, the FIR was registered under Sections 379-A, 34 IPC against
unknown persons.
3. During the course of investigation, on 24.05.2016, Gaurav,
respondent No.1 was arrested and the gold chain and the motorcycle used in the
commission of crime were recovered from him. After completion of the
investigation, the challan was presented against both the respondents.
4. After consideration of the evidence collected during the course of
investigation, charge under Section 379-A read with Section 34 of IPC was
framed against both the respondents, to which they pleaded not guilty and
requested for trial.
5. In support of the charge, the prosecution had examined 7
witnesses, namely, HC Vijender Singh PW-1, Krishna Rani PW-2, EASI Ram
Mehar PW-3, C. Umar Mohammad PW-4, ASI Fateh Singh PW-5, Vicky
Sehgal PW-6 and Inspector/SHO Suresh Kumar, PW-7.
6. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the evidence
collected during the trial was put to the respondents in the shape of the
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, they denied all the evidence and
claimed that they were innocent. The respondents opted not to lead any
evidence before the trial Court.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the trial Court
had completely brushed aside the evidence led by the prosecution and the
respondents have been wrongly acquitted. Learned counsel has referred to the
testimony of PW-2 Krishna Rani, complainant, who had pointed towards both
the accused in the Court and clearly stated that they were the accused, who had
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054034
CRM-A-1684-MA-2017 - 3- 2024:PHHC:054034
snatched her gold chain on 11.05.2016. She tried to chase them, however, they
had fled from the spot on their motorcycle. Even after the recovery of gold
chain, she had identified the case property on 25.05.2016, vide memo Ex. PB.
The statement of PW-2 Krishna Rani was duly corroborated by PW-6 Vicky
Sehgal, who had also seen the respondents/accused at the time of occurrence
and had identified both of them in the Court. Learned State counsel submits
that the ocular deposition of witnesses had not been appreciated by the trial
Court in the correct prospective. Learned State counsel further submits that in
fact in the present case, even though, no test identification parade was got
conducted by the police after arrest of both the accused, but the respondents
could not have been acquitted on this ground as the victim had identified the
accused in the Court. Learned Court failed to appreciate that PW-2 Krishna
Rani had no reason to falsely involve both the respondents in a criminal case.
Still further, the recovery of gold chain from Gaurav, respondent No.1 and its
identification by PW-2 Krishna Rani was enough to bring home the guilt of the
respondents. Apart from that, the impugned judgment is passed on mis-
appreciation of evidence and the settled canons of law. Thus, the impugned
judgment is legally unsustainable.
8. I have considered the submissions made by learned State counsel
in the light of the evidence led by the prosecution. In the present case, the
prosecution had primarily relied upon PW-2 Krishna Rani/complainant and her
son Vicky Sehgal, who appeared as PW-6. In her deposition, she had pointed
out towards both the accused. However, her cross-examination, she had
identified only Gaurav and stated that she did not identify Anil alias Kalu.
Even she admitted in her cross-examination that she had disclosed the date of
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054034
CRM-A-1684-MA-2017 - 4- 2024:PHHC:054034
occurrence as 11.05.2016, after going through the writing on her palm. Apart
from that, in the present case, both the accused were not known to the
complainant and her son Vicky Sehgal. However, both had claimed that they
had seen the accused and they could identify them. Thus, the accused came to
be previously known to complainant and her son, the prosecution was under a
duty to hold the test identification parade after the arrest of the accused.
9. Still further, even though, the prosecution has claimed that Vicky
Sehgal, PW-6 was also at the place of occurrence. However, his statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. DA proved that he had not witnessed the
occurrence and had approached the spot after hearing the noise of his mother.
Apart from that, the respondents were tried by the prosecution for snatching the
gold chain of PW-2 Krishna Rani. However, the gold chain was not produced
before the Court and such non-production of the case property by the
prosecution was fatal for the case. Even the gold chain should have been
identified by the complainant and other witnesses before the Court and in the
presence of the accused. Even PW-2 admitted in her cross-examination that she
had sold the gold chain. Apart from that, the prosecution also failed to examine
the MHC of Police Station with whom the gold chain was deposited by the
Investigating Officer after recovery from Gaurav, respondent No.1. Thus, the
trial Court was right in observing that the prosecution had miserably failed to
link both the accused with the commission of offence.
10. Apart from that, I have gone through the findings recorded by the
trial Court and the findings do not suffer from any material irregularity,
illegality or perversity. Thus, the impugned judgment dated 08.12.2016 passed
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054034
CRM-A-1684-MA-2017 - 5- 2024:PHHC:054034
by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat is upheld and leave to
appeal is declined.
11. The present appeal is dismissed.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
08.04.2024. JUDGE
hemlata
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
