VIKAS @ VICKEY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition challenge has been made to the judgment dtd. 27/6/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal appeal No. 35/2023, whereby the learned Appellate Court while affirming the judgment dtd. 29/6/2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 721/2016 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 411 of the IPC, reduced the sentence for the said offence from simple imprisonment of 3 years to simple imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months and also reduced the fine amount from Rs.10,000.00 to Rs.5,000.00. The sentence for default in payment of fine was also reduced to 1 months' simple imprisonment from 3 months' simple imprisonment.

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 31/1/2016, Mr. Dinesh Kumar, SHO, Police Station, Nohar received a telephonic information that a boy has brought a motorcycle to the house of Mohar Singh, resident of Maliya and is intending to sell it at cheap rate, as such, it could be a stolen vehicle. In pursuance of the above information, the SHO alongwith other police personnel reached to the house of Mohar Singh and found a young boy wandering there, who tried to hide on seeing the police party. On being caught, he told his name to be Vikar Kumar @ Vicky and that the Platina motorcycle lying there had been stolen by his friend Monti from Elanabad and that he had brought the same there with an intention to sell. The police seized the motorcycle and on basis of the aforesaid seizure, registered FIR No. 72/2016 for the offence under Sec. 411 of the IPC. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner for the above offence.

(3.) The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 411 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offence, examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. No evidence was adduced in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned Trial Court convicted the accused for offence under Sec. 411 of the IPC vide judgment dtd. 29/6/2022. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed in the manner stated above vide judgment dtd. 27/6/2023. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this Court.