Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 May, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060986
2024:PHHC:060986
CRR-1240-2019 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-1240-2019
Date of Decision:- 02.05.2024
SUKHCHAIN SINGH
......Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS
......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Baljinder Singh, DAG, Punjab.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The present revision petition has been preferred against the
judgment dated 25.01.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot
whereby the accused/respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been acquitted of the
charges framed against them.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.65 dated
25.04.2009 was registered at the instance of the petitioner/complainant
under Sections 467/380/411 IPC, P.S. Sadar Faridkot District Faridkot
with the allegations that on the night intervening 21/22.05.2009, he had
seen the private respondents escaping from his house after climbing over
the wall. On the examination of his room, he found that there was a hole in
the roof of the room and his iron box was lying open. On checking the
same, he found that his purse containing gold ornaments, two mobile
phones and Rs.10,000/- had been stolen.
3. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 faced trial and were convicted for
having committed the offences under Sections 457/480 IPC and were
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060986
2024:PHHC:060986
awarded RI for two years, fine of Rs.500/- and 2 months in default of
payment of fine under both the offences. However, they came to be
acquitted for the offence under Section 411 IPC.
4. The accused/respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed an appeal before
the Sessions Judge, Faridkot against their conviction whereas the
complainant/petitioner filed an appeal against the acquittal of the
accused/respondent Nos.2 and 3 under Section 411 IPC and enhancement
of their sentences.
5. All the three appeals were decided by the Sessions Judge,
Faridkot vide judgment dated 08.01.2013. While the accused/respondent
Nos.2 and 3 were acquitted of the charges framed against them, the appeal
filed by the complainant/petitioner for enhancement of the sentences came
to be dismissed. The copy of the said judgment dated 08.01.2013 is
attached as Annexure P-1 to the petition.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner/complainant challenged the
aforementioned judgment by filing CRR-873-2013. This Court vide
judgment dated 16.05.2017 remanded the case back for a fresh
adjudication on merits. The copy of the said judgment of this Court dated
16.05.2017 is attached as Annexure P-2 to the petition.
7. On remand the Appellate Court vide its judgment dated
25.01.2019 again allowed the appeals of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant.
8. The aforementioned judgment dated 25.01.2019 is under
challenge in the present petition.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060986
2024:PHHC:060986
Appellate Court had wrongly come to the conclusion that there had been a
delay in the registration of the FIR. In fact, the FIR had been registered
only when the Sarpanch had failed to take any action against respondent
Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, the delay stood well explained. The
discrepancies referred to by the Appellate Court were minor in nature and
did not substantially affect the merits of the case. In fact, the evidence had
not been appreciated in its proper perspective.
10. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has supported the
case of the petitioner/complainant and states that there was ample evidence
on record to uphold the conviction recorded by the Trial Court.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
12. A perusal of the record would reveal that the theft had
allegedly taken place on the night intervening 21/22.05.2009 at about
03.00 AM and the FIR had been got recorded on 24.05.2009 at 05.30 PM.
Once the accused were identified by the complainant/petitioner at the spot
and they had been named in the FIR, the delay in the registration of the
same is fatal to the case of the prosecution case. Though, the complainant/
petitioner-Sukhchain Singh has stated in his original complaint that he had
informed the Panchayat regarding the theft committed by the
accused/respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 22.05.2009 a fact which he has
reiterated as PW1, Tarsem Singh, Sarpanch while deposing as DW1 as
stated that the complainant had not disclosed the name of the accused and
he had stated that someone else had committed theft in his house. It was
only later that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had been implicated at the instance
of Jagtar Singh and Pritam Singh, Ex.-Sarpanch who belonged to the other
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060986
2024:PHHC:060986
faction in the village. PW4/Bashir Singh has admitted to the enmity
between Tarsem Singh and Jagtar Singh as well as Pritam Singh, Ex.-
Sarpanch and has also admitted that he belonged to the faction of Jagtar
Singh and Pritam Singh, Ex.-Sarpanch. It is also evident from the record
that the statement of Tarsem Singh was never recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and nor was he joined in the investigation. Therefore, it is apparent
that the prosecution case of Sukhchain Singh informing the Panchayat of
the occurrence and the names of the accused on the next day is baseless
thereby leaving the delay of two days in recording the FIR unexplained.
Further, the recovery has also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In
fact, H.C. Jagsir Singh who had allegedly effected the recoveries has not
been examined as a prosecution witness. ASI Balvir Singh is also not a
witness of recovery. There are several discrepancies in the statements
given by Bashir Singh (PW4) and in the absence of the evidence of the I.O.
HC Jagsir Singh who had arrested both the accused/respondent Nos.2 and
3 and had got effected the recoveries on the basis of their disclosure
statements, the evidence of Bashir Singh (PW4) is to be considered with a
pinch of salt.
13. In view of the aforementioned discussion, I find no merit in
the present petition. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
02.05.2024
JITESH
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
