DHARAMBIR AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners/accused, Dharambir and Om Parkash, were charged for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. They were tried and convicted by JMIC, Bhiwani, vide judgment dated 14.5.2002 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. They preferred an appeal against that conviction and sentence, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Bhwaini, vide judgment dated 17.12.2005. Now the present revision has been filed challenging that conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Hans Raj, complainant (P.W. 1), was owner of the motor car, make Maruti, bearing No. MNA -5. On 9.11.1996, at about 10 p.m. he parked his motor car in front of his house from where the same was stolen by someone. About that theft, he gave written application Ex. PA to the officer in -charge police station Bawani Khera and on the basis thereof FIR Ex. P.W. 4/B was recorded. The investigation was conducted by Ramesh Kumar, Inspector, SHO (P.W. 4), who went to the place of theft and after inspecting the same, prepared rough site plan Ex. P.W. 4/C with correct marginal notes. On 11.11.1996, the complainant with the SHO and other police officer was going from Rohtak towards Jind in connection with tracing of the car, when both the accused were found coming in that car. The car was stopped and was duly identified by the complainant. Both the accused were arrested and the car was taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex. PB. After completion of the investigation, challan was put in before the JMIC, who found sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. They were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Hans Raj (P.W. 1), Dharambir, Constable (P.W. 2), Ram Kumar, ASI (P.W.3) and Ramesh Kumar, Inspector (P.W. 4). After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined by the trial Court and their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Code. All the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances and pleaded their false implication. They were called upon to enter on their defence but they did not produce any evidence in their defence.

(3.) IT has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused that he is only assailing the sentence so imposed upon the accused. He has made a prayer for the release of the accused on probation on the grounds that they are not previous convicts, have already undergone sentence of imprisonment for a period of more than one month, are poor agriculturists, having large families to support and have stood protracted trial for a number of years. However, the learned State Counsel has opposed that prayer by contending that for such an offence, the accused are not entitled to the benefit of probation.