Harshverdhan Singh And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Singh, J

Present revision is filed against the order dated 01.06.2013 passed by Sessions Judge Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2011 whereby learned Sessions Judge was pleased to frame charge under Section 379 IPC against the revisionists.

In the present case, PW2 Prosecutrix in her statement stated that in 2010, she was studying in BA first year in Degree College, Pithoragarh. She came in contact with Harshvardhan Jayala. He used to take and drop her to College. In the same year, Harshvardhan Jayala introduced her with his friend Sahil Chand. They became friend. After some time, Harshvardhan Jayala and Sahil Chand started blackmailing her. Sahil Chand wanted to marry her. While blackmailing her, they threatened her that if she did not obey their commands, they would make her video viral. Initially, they asked her to bring Rupees One Lakh from her house when she refused to bring same, they pressurized and asked her to bring gold jewellery from her house. After their continuous threat, on 23.10.2010, under compulsion, prosecutrix took gold ornaments viz. Mangalsutra, one pair of Pahunchi, one pair earrings, one nose rings and cash.

Considering the facts and circumstances, learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh framed charge under Section 379 IPC against the revisionists.

Let me examine whether learned Sessions Judge was right in framing the charge under Section 379 IPC against the revisionist. Theft is defined in Section 378 IPC, which reads as under:

"378. Theft - Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft."

In the present case, property viz. gold ornaments and cash belongs to the parents of prosecutrix and accused revisionists pressurized the prosecutrix to bring gold jewellery and cash from her house, failing which they make her video clip viral.

From the perusal of record, it clearly transpires that revisionists wanted to grab money from the prosecutrix, therefore, they compelled the prosecutrix to deceit their parents. Here it is not a case that prosecutrix at her own volition took out the jewellery & cash and fled away with revisionists. Here, revisionists compelled her to bring money. Even, prosecutrix demanded her jewellery back, then they informed her that they had sold it. Prosecutrix was only medium of transfer of property and ultimately, property so stolen was reached and sold by the revisionists. Jewellery was in possession of the revisionists and sold by them to Jeweller PW6 Rajendra Verma this is establish by the statement of PW6 Rajendra Verma himself. PW 6 Rajendra Verma Jeweller stated that revisionists mortgaged the jewellery and took Rs. 1,05,500/- in lieu thereof. He issued a receipt of jewellery and payment. He identified the copy of cash receipt whereon name of Harshvarshan Jayala was mentioned which was issued at the time of making payment of jewellery.

The ingredients of theft in my opinion are fulfilled. Revisionists dishonestly took the jewellery from the possession of parents of prosecutrix, without the consent of her parents. Therefore, revisionists committed theft.

In my view the learned Sessions Judge has rightly framed the charge under Section 379 IPC against the revisionists. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Accordingly, revision fails and is hereby dismissed.

Let copy of this order be sent the trial court forthwith for information.