JASWINDER SINGH ALIAS SINDER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner No.1 Jaswinder Singh @ Sinde, petitioner No. 4 Kabul Singh @ Fauji, who have been convicted and sentenced under Section 392 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and petitioner No. 2 Hardeep Singh @ Deepa, petitioner No. 3Satnam Singh @ Santa, who have been convicted and sentenced under Section 411 I.P.C. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sunam, initially convicted all the petitioners under Section 392 read with Section 34 I.P.C.and sentenced them all to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years (each) and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (each) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, vide judgment dated 25.09.2007.

(2.) On an appeal preferred by the petitioners, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide his judgment dated 26.05.2009 has sustained the conviction of petitioner No. 1 Jaswinder Singh @ Sinder and petitioner No. 4 Kabul Singh @ Fauji under Section392 read with Section 34 I.P.C, but had converted the conviction and sentence of petitioner No. 2 Hardeep Singh @ Deepa and petitioner No. 3Satnam Singh @ Santa to Section 411 I.P.C. The sentence has not been changed and has ordered to remain same including fine. Hence, the present Revision Petition. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the identities of petitioners No.1 and 4 have not been established as complainant Vasdev has initially stated at the time of registration of case that the persons, who had extorted an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs from him were two in number and of whitish complexion. He submits that Jaswinder Singh @ Sinder-petitioner No. 1 and Kabul Singh @ Fauji-petitioner No. 4 are not of wheatishcomplexion and even age, which has been given by the complainant Vasdev to the police of two persons who had extorted the money was different from actual age of both the accused.

(3.) He, therefore, submits that the identities of the accused, who have been found guilty under Section 392 read with Section 34 I.P.C, need to be acquitted and since accused No. 2 Hardee Singh and accused No. 3 Satnam Singh were not involved in the said crime and have been convicted under Section 411 I.P.C, also deserve to be acquitted. He in any case submits that there is no evidence against petitioner No. 2 Hardeep Singh @ Deepa and petitioner No. 3 Satnam Singh @ Santa, who it is alleged to have shared booty of amount allegedly snatched by petitioners No. 1 and 4.Counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the statements, which have been brought on record, to make his submission with regard to his contention. He further submits that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 were arrested in F.I.R. No. 50 of 2004 dated 08.06.2004 for an offence punishable under Section 399/402 I.P.C. at Police Station Khanauri, and thereafter during investigation it is alleged that the disclosure statement was made by petitioners No. 1 and 2 namely Jaswinder Singh @ Sinder Sing hand Hardeep Singh @ Deepa respectively, which lead to the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1.75 lakh and Rs. 75,000/- respectively.