GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURDEV Singh son of Rattan Singh was convicted under section 511, Indian Penal Code, by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, for which Offence he was sentenced to six months Rigorous Imprisonment. One Sukhwinder Singh son of Bachan Singh was also tried along with Gurdev Singh in connection with the same incident and he too was convicted under section 511, Indian Penal Code. The sentence of six months Rigorous Imprisonment was imposed upon the said co -accused also Gurdev Singh petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence aforesaid which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. He has now filed the present Revision Petition, with a view to impugn his conviction and sentence.

(2.) AT the time of the hearing of the arguments in this Revision Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced before this Court a certified copy of the judgment of Shri O.P. Dharwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, rendered in the appeal filed by Sukhwinder Singh co -accused of the petitioner against his conviction by the trial Court in the present case. As per this judgment, the said appeal was accepted and Sukhwinder Singh was acquitted of the charge framed against him. It was held in the judgment that the prosecution has failed to prove that the property alleged to have been stolen i.e. a car tyre belonged to the Institution concerned, i.e, Central Training Institute for Instructors, Ludhiana, as no evidence was produced on this point. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon the observations in the said judgment to contend that if the case against the main accused, i.e., Sukhwinder Singh, who was alleged to have committed the theft of the tyre, had failed in view of his acquittal on the ground noted above the charge against the petitioner must also fail in view of the same ground. It is further submitted that even otherwise, according to the testimony of the two prosecution witnesses, namely, Karam Singh (P.W. 1) and Salig Ram (P.W. 4), the petitioner was just seen running away from the spot and it was only his co -accused Sukhwinder Singh who was apprehended at the spot. The contention of the learned counsel is quite sound. These should not be two conflicting decisions in regard to the same occurrence.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY the present Revision Petition is allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge section 511, Indian Penal Code. His conviction and sentence on the said charge are set aside. Revision allwed.