SUBHASH CHAND Vs. RAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present criminal revision petition, at the instance of complainant, is directed against the impugned judgment dated 26.10.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sirsa, whereby appeal of the accused-respondents No.1 & 2, against the judgment of conviction dated 07.12.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sirsa, was allowed and conviction of the accused-respondents, was set aside. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 2 of his impugned judgment, are that on 08.12.1997 Subhash Chand came to the police station and moved an application alleging therein that he was resident of Village Ram Nagria and was running a shop of electricity goods under the name of Sharma Electricals, on rent, near the hospital of Dr. Raj Kumar. The said shop was owned by Guran Ditta. It was further alleged that being Sunday, he did not open his shop and had gone to attend the marriage of his cousin. On 08.12.1997 when he came to open his shop, he found that the lock of his shop was lying broken and shutter of his shop was locked with some other lock and the electricity goods were lying in burnt condition near the shop. It was further the case of the complainant that 10/11 days prior to the present occurrence, Guran Ditta had come to him and threatened them to vacate the shop as he had sold the same to someone else. He requested him to give him 4/5 months' time so that he may recover money from different people and may also arrange some suitable place of his business. He had also taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- from Punjab National Bank and at that time, there were articles worth Rs.2.50/3.0 lac in the shop, besides cash of Rs.25,000/-. It was further alleged that during intervening night of 7/8.12.1997, Guran Ditta and his two sons had broken the locks of his shop and had stolen the articles and thereafter set the same on fire. In that way, they caused loss to him to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. He had also filed a civil suit in the Court for seeking stay order against Guran Ditta. He further alleged that for about 6/7 days prior to that occurrence, Saligram Ex-Sarpanch had come to his shop for purchasing bulb and at that time, Guran Ditta and his sons had also come there and asked him to vacate the shop failing which, he would be beheaded. On the basis of that application, the present case was registered. Investigation was started by the police. Police prepared rough site plan. Accused were arrested on 09.12.1997 and their disclosure statements were recorded vide which they got recovered electric articles. Similarly one more accused namely Guran Ditta (since deceased) was also arrested by the police on 12.12.1997. The place of occurrence was also got photographed. After completing the necessary investigation the accused were challaned.

(2.) In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 05 PWs, besides producing on record other relevant documentary evidence. During the course of trial, one accused namely Guran Ditta died. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating material brought on record, was put to the accused. They denied all the allegations levelled by the prosecution, alleged false implication and pleaded complete innocence. However, accused did not lead any defence evidence.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case, bringing home guilt against the accused. Accordingly, the accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 457/380/435 and 506 IPC, vide judgment of conviction dated 07.12.2005. Consequently, the convicts were awarded the sentence vide order of sentence of even date i.e. 07.12.2005. Feeling aggrieved, convicts filed their separate appeals which came to be allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his impugned judgment dated 26.10.2009. Hence this criminal revision petition, at the hands of the complainant.