Ankush Puri vs State Of Punjab on 16 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ankush Puri vs State Of Punjab on 16 February, 2024

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022493




CRR-2756-2023(O&M)               #1#                       2024:PHHC:022493

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH.


                                                      CRR-2756-2023(O&M)

                                                 Date of Decision:-16.02.2024

Ankush Puri.
                                                                   ......Petitioner.
                                       Vs.
State of Punjab.
                                                                 ......Respondent.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:-   Mr. Manbir Singh Batth, Advocate for the Petitioner.

            Ms. Amrita Garg, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

                                 ***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

The instant revision petition has been preferred by the

petitioner-accused against the judgment dated 08.11.2023 passed by the

Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 22.12.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Ferozepur has been upheld.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the investigating agency

received a secret information that Dilbagh Singh @ Lucky and Ankush Puri

were habitual of selling stolen motor cycles and would be waiting at Dhobi

Ghat, Ferozepur Cantt. for selling the same. If a raid was conducted they

could be apprehended. Based on this information, an FIR came to be

registered. A motor cycle bearing engine number HA10EJDH05319 was

found parked on which Dilbagh Singh @ Lucky was seated and another

motor cycle bearing engine number 71759 was found parked on which

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2024 23:47:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022493

CRR-2756-2023(O&M) #2# 2024:PHHC:022493

Ankush Puri was seated. They could not produce any documents regarding

their ownership and admitted that the said motor cycles were stolen. The

recovered motor cycles were taken into possession and the accused were

formally arrested.

On conclusion of the investigation the report under Section

173(2) Cr.PC was submitted against both the arrested accused. Charge was

framed under Section 411 IPC.

3. On conclusion of the Trial, the accused came to be convicted

and sentenced by the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur vide

judgment of conviction dated 22.12.2022 as under:-

Sr.No. Offence under Sections Imprisonment Fine In default of fine
imprisonment

1. Section 411 IPC 06 Months each – –

4. Both the convicted accused preferred an appeal bearing

Criminal Appeal No.04 of 21.01.2023 before the Court of Sessions Judge,

Ferozepur. While convict Dilbagh Singh @ Lucky was acquitted,

conviction of the petitioner Ankush Puri came to be upheld by the court of

Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 08.11.2023.

5. The aforementioned judgments are under challenge in the

present revision petition.

6. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment of

conviction is illegal and perverse. Material admissible evidence had been

left out of consideration and the conviction has been recorded on inferences.

Allegations against the petitioner could not be believed as no independent

witness had been joined by the prosecution agency at the time of recovery of

the motor cycles. There was no evidence which proves that the motor cycle

was stolen by the petitioner. Therefore the link evidence was missing. In

fact PW-5 Munish Kumar categorically stated in his cross examination that

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2024 23:47:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022493

CRR-2756-2023(O&M) #3# 2024:PHHC:022493

he did not know who had stolen his motor cycle. The offence under Section

411 IPC was not made out as the ingredients of the same were not fulfilled.

As the commission of the offence was not established in accordance with

law the judgments of conviction were liable to be set aside and the petitioner

ought to be acquitted of the charges framed against him.

7. The Counsel for the State has placed on record the custody

certificate of the petitioner dated 16.02.2024 as per which he has undergone

a custody period of 03 months and 22 days. He contends that the offence

has been established beyond reasonable doubt. There were no significant

contradictions between the statements of the witnesses and, therefore, the

present petition was liable to be dismissed.

8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

9. A perusal of the evidence on record particularly the statement of

PW-5 Manish Kumar would show that the motor cycle in question bearing

No.PB-29K-8855 was in the ownership of the said Manish Kumar which

had been stolen on 10.10.2015 regarding which a report was made to the

SHO Talwandi Bhai. Later the motor cycle came to be recovered by the

officials of Police Station Cantt, Ferozepur in March 2016 when it was

found to be in possession of the petitioner. Therefore, clearly, the offence

under Section 411 IPC stands established against the petitioner.

10. In view of the above discussion, I find no ground to interfere

with the well reasoned judgments of conviction and order of sentence

recorded by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur which have been

upheld by Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Resultantly, the revision petition

stands dismissed.

11. As regards the imposition of sentence, it may be pointed out

that the applicant is a young boy and a first time offender. He has already

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 17-02-2024 23:47:05 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022493

CRR-2756-2023(O&M) #4# 2024:PHHC:022493

undergone total custody of 03 months and 22 days (including remission) out

of his substantive sentence of 06 months. Therefore, keeping in view the

clean antecedents of the petitioner, as also the fact that he had undergone a

substantial period of imprisonment, while upholding his conviction, I deem

it appropriate to reduce the sentence of the petitioner to the period already

undergone by him.

12. The revision petition stand disposed of in the above terms.



                                               ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
                                                    JUDGE
February 16, 2024
Vinay
        Whether speaking/reasoned                   Yes/No
        Whether reportable                          Yes/No




                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022493

                                      4 of 4
                  ::: Downloaded on - 17-02-2024 23:47:05 :::
 

[ad_2]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *