Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ved Pal vs State Of Haryana on 2 August, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099065
245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR No.2336 of 2006
Date of decision: 2nd August, 2024
Ved Pal
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Ms. Monica Jalota, Advocate
Amicus Curiae for the petitioner.
Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, Asst. Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent/State.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has filed the instant revision petition to
challenge the order dated 24.07.2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions
Judge, Ambala in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2004 whereby the
judgment of conviction dated 23.12.2003 and order of sentence dated
24.12.2003 passed by learned Railway Magistrate (Haryana), Ambala
Cantt, was upheld.
2. Vide judgment dated 23.12.2003, learned Railway
Magistrate (Haryana), Ambala Cantt convicted and sentenced the
petitioner along with two co-accused i.e. Pritam Pal and Pritam Singh,
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of
`1000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two months each under Section 3 of the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099065
Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act (hereinafter referred to as,
'the Railway Act').
3. The case as set up by the prosecution may be noticed as
thus:
On 18.05.1994 at around 1:00 p.m., ASI Ram Kishan,
G.R.P., Jagadhri on receipt of message of ASI Balbir Singh,
Police Station Farakpur that some persons after cutting
Eucalyptus trees were loading them in a cart, reached at the spot
and arrested two persons carrying eight number wooden pieces.
On enquiry they disclosed their names as Pritam Pal son of Kalu
Ram and Pritam Singh son of Vilayati Ram and stated that they
were working with Railway Contractor Ved Pal on hire basis of
`100/- for carrying wooden pieces. Since the stolen property
belonged to Railways, information was given to RPF Post
Jagadhri on which ASI Ram Kishan alongwith other police
officials reached the spot and found that eight wooden pieces of
four Eucalyptus trees were being carried away by Pritam Pal and
Pritam Singh. The stolen property was taken in possession and
petitioners were arrested. The place from where trees were
allegedly cut was got identified. Samples from the wooden pieces
were taken and sent to Wood Anatomy, Botany Division, Forest
Research Institute, Dehradun (UP) for verification and as per
scientist report three samples were of the same tree and one piece
was different. During interrogation, petitioners suffered
disclosure statements. Accused Ved Pal seeing the police party
had fled away from the spot and was arrested on 20.05.1994 by
Sub Inspector R.P. Singh. He also suffered a disclosure statement
and in pursuance of the same got recovered an axe used by him
for cutting the trees, which was taken into possession. On
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099065
completion of investigation and other formalities the complaint
was sent to the Court for trial.
4. Learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the trial Court as
well as the lower Appellate Court erred in recording a finding of
conviction against the petitioner as there was lack of reliable or
independent evidence qua the alleged recoveries from the petitioner.
Furthermore, the reliance by the courts below on a confessional
statement, recorded by RPF officials without any independent
corroboration too raised a question mark. Learned Amicus further
vehemently argued that the trial Court disregarded the relevant case
laws which clearly reflected lack of any legal reasoning. The reliance
of the prosecution solely on official witnesses, with no independent
verification or corroboration, further created a dent in the case of the
prosecution. Learned Amicus also argued that the petitioner was
arrested two days after the occurrence in question on the basis of a
totally inadmissible evidence i.e. a disclosure statement. Furthermore,
the prosecution failed to produce any documentary evidence much less
a shortage memo or any complaint having been made by the Railways.
Pertinently, the recovered property did not bear any marks of the
Railways, and thus, there was no cogent evidence confirming that it
belonged to the Railways.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record including the impugned judgments passed
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099065
by Courts below. This Court does not find any illegality much less
perversity in them.
6. At this stage, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of
the petitioner prays that a compassionate view be taken since the
petitioner has suffered the agony of a protracted trial for the last 30
years; the petitioner has been leading a disciplined life ever since then
as it is a matter of record that he has not been involved in any other
criminal case. A prayer has, therefore, been made that in the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, a lenient view be taken and the quantum of
sentence awarded to the petitioner by the Court below be reduced to the
period already undergone as no useful purpose would be served by
sending the petitioner behind bars.
7. The custody certificate, which has been filed by the State
counsel today in Court, reflects that the petitioner has previously been
involved in a similar case under Sections 145/147 of the Railway Act,
however, he has since been released on expiry of the sentence awarded
to him in the aforesaid case.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as
well as the submissions made by learned Amicus Curiae appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that ends of
justice would be met, if while maintaining the conviction of the
petitioner, his substantive sentence of one year is reduced to the period
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099065
of sentence already undergone by him in the present case. There shall
be no modification with regard to sentence of fine.
9. With these modifications, the instant revision petition is
disposed off.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
August 2, 2024
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
