SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT This revision is directed against the judgment, dated 02.09.02, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which, it partly accepted the appeal, maintaining the conviction and sentence for the offence, punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, and acquitting the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 05.01.2001, rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fazilka, convicting the accused and awarding them sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each, for the offence, punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, and further sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each, for the offence, punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Pawan Kumar, complainant, had been running a shop of karyana merchant, in Krishna Mandir Street, Jalalabad. On 12.12.1999 he, his mother Sumitra Devi and Asha Rani, wife of Harbhagwan, were present at the shop. He was selling the goods to Asha Rani. Both the accused came to the shop. Surjit Singh, accused, removed gold ear-rings from the ears of Sumitra Devi, by pulling the same, whereas, Maninder Singh, accused, removed the earrings from the ears of Asha Rani, in the same manner. Thereafter, both the accused ran away from the spot. They were duly chased by the complainant, but, on account of darkness, they managed to escape. The ear-rings were got manufactured from Babbu son of Kishore Chand, gold smith, PW2. The complainant and the ladies, aforesaid, continued asking the kith and kin of the accused, to give back the ear-rings aforesaid, but they failed to do so. Thereafter, the complainant got the first information report recorded. During the course of investigation, both the accused were arrested on 18.12.1998. They were interrogated on 19.12.1998, in the presence of the complainant, and Babbu, goldsmith. Surjit Singh, accused, made a disclosure statement P2 that he had concealed the ear-rings, after putting the same, in an envelope, in the western corner of the plot, in front of the house of Maninder Singh, of which he only knew, and could get the same recovered, by pointing out. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered a pair of ear-rings, which were identified by Babbu, gold smith, as the same, as were got manufactured from him by Sumitra Devi. The ear-rings were converted into a parcel, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide memo P5. On interrogation, Maninder Singh, accused, made a disclosure statement P3, that he had concealed a pair of ear-rings, after putting the same, in an envelope, in the western corner of the inhabited house of Setia, in front of his own house, of which he only knew and could get the same recovered, by pointing out. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered the ear-rings, from the said place, which were identified by Babbu, gold-smith, as the same were got manufactured from him, by Harbhagwan. The ear-rings were converted into a parcel, duly sealed, and taken into possession, vide memo P4. The rough site plan P10 of the place of recovery, was prepared. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned.

(3.) THE prosecution, in support of its case, examined Pawan Kumar, complainant (PW1), Babbu, gold smith (PW2), Puran Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW3), Sumitra Devi (PW4), and Asha Rani (PW5). Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, closed the prosecution evidence.