Ajay Kumar vs State of Haryana

R.P. Nagrath, J.—The instant revision has been filed to challenge the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below for offence u/s 182 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further undergo imprisonment for one month u/s 182 IPC. The petitioner made a complaint Ex. PW-3/B on 02.02.2007 to the police that he was thrashed at the instance of Amarjit Singh Tehsildar who approached him alongwith Mani @ Maan Singh and Amandeep Singh for compromise as the later two persons were found in possession of small quantity of smack but wanted to plant the recovery on the mother of the petitioner. It was ultimately found that this complaint was falsely made and on the complaint of the police cognizance of offence u/s 182 IPC was taken.

The version of prosecution was that in fact the police party received a secret information against the mother of the petitioner and raided her house. Recovery of 5.2 gms. of smack was made from the mother of petitioner for which FIR No. 66 dated 02.02.2007 was registered u/s NDPS Act at Police Station City Dabwali but the petitioner was insisting upon that he be substituted as accused in place of his mother and fabricated injuries on his person.

In order to prove that false complaint was filed, the prosecution examined Inspector Shishram as PW-2, Sher Singh (IO) as PW-3, SI Bhagwan Dass (retired) as PW-4 and Navratan Bansal as PW-5. After analysis of evidence and the probabilities in the prosecution case and improbabilities in the defence evidence, the Courts below have come to the firm finding to hold the petitioner guilty of the offence u/s 182 IPC and no illegality or infirmity could be pointed out in these findings which could be possibly interfered in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not challenged the conviction concurrently recorded by the Courts below quite fairly and confined his argument qua the quantum of sentence only.

As per custody certificate placed on record by learned State counsel, the petitioner has undergone almost four months of imprisonment out of the total sentence of six months, awarded by the trial Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the imprisonment already suffered by the petitioner is found sufficient punishment and the instant revision is partly allowed, reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner and dismissing the revision on merits.

Copy of this order be immediately sent to all the concerned for compliance.