RAM CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.9.1989, vide which the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for commission of an offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. His appeal was dismissed by the appellate court below, vide its judgment dated 11.7.1990. That order is also under challenge in this revision petition.

(2.) It was the story of the prosecution that on the intervening night of 27th and 28th January, 1986, Roop Chand stayed in the house of accused-petitioner and after taking his meals he went to sleep in a room with his bag containing Rs. 75,000/-, route permit, a national permit and his bank pass-book, which kept under the pillow. In the morning, when he got up, he found the bag containing all these articles missing. On not getting satisfactory reply from the petitioner, matter was reported to the police. FIR was recorded and during investigation, above mentioned articles were recovered. On the basis of statement Ex.PA, petitioner was then challaned for commission of offence under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code. He was charge sheeted. Prosecution then led evidence to prove its case. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he pleaded his false implication. Trial court, then, on perusal of evidence, found him guilty of an offence under Section 411 IPC, convicted and sentenced him as found mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of this order. Petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed.

(3.) It is apparent from the records that the stolen articles were recovered on the basis of a disclosure statement Ex.PB, Case of the prosecution is fully proved by the Statements of PW1 Roop Chand complainant, PW2 Rajinder Kumar and Investigating Officer. Petitioner had brought no evidence to show that his implication was false. In the grounds of revision, petitioner has indicated towards some discrepancies in the statements of witnesses. However, on perusal of the records, it is found that discrepancies were minor. There existed no contradiction on the basis of which, it can be said that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.