DHAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this criminal revision petition is to the judgment, dated 14.07.2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners, Dhan Singh, Gobind and Anil Kumar, challenging their conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 411, IPC, recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani, was dismissed.

(2.) Mr.Sunil Saharan, learned proxy counsel for the petitioners, submits that he has the instructions to argue the present case. He further submits that he has also the instructions to state at Bar that in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, petitioners are not challenging their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 411, IPC. However, in view of the fact that the occurrence is of the month of August 2001; none of the petitioners is a previous convict or required in any other case; petitioners Gobind and Anil Kumar have undergone substantive sentence of 19 days each while petitioner No.1 Dhan Singh has suffered incarceration for 29 days; the fine imposed was deposited before the learned trial Court and that during pendency of the trial, appeal and the present criminal revision petition, the petitioners remained on bail but none of them misused the said concession, he prays for leniency in the quantum of sentence only.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has not controverted the factual aspects raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, he submits that though the offence for commission of theft by the petitioners could not be substantiated yet both the Courts below have held that petitioners had retained the golden ornaments of the informant and, as such, the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners is adequate. He has produced three separate affidavits of the Superintendent, District Jail, Bhiwani, to show the period of incarceration suffered by each petitioner which are taken on record.