PARVINDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parvinder and Akash challenge the impugned judgment dated 22nd December, 2016 convicting them for offences punishable under Section 392/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 29th December, 2016 directing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each. Sumit (the co-accused) was also convicted vide the impugned judgment, however, he was released on the period undergone by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for Parvinder contends that FIR in the present case was registered against some unknown persons. Though the PCR van was stationed near the place of incident, however, the complainant was asked to call on 100 number and despite the fact that officials in PCR van were informed, they were not made witnesses. The owner of Accent car, from where the accused persons were arrested, was not made a witness in the present case. The owner of robbed motorcycle was also not made a witness in the case. No recovery was affected from the appellant in the police custody. Furthermore, since the appellant was shown to the complainant after arrest, the appellant refused to participate in the TIP proceeding. No public witness was associated despite the fact that incident took place at 2:30 P.M. and public was present at the alleged check post. The prosecution story is concocted and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Lastly, it is urged that the appellant has no prior criminal antecedents, thus he be released on probation or the period already undergone.

(3.) Learned counsel for Akash, in addition to the aforestated arguments, submits that appellant is the sole bread earner in the family. Thus, he be acquitted.