AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabina, J.—Petitioner was tried for an offence punishable u/s 411 of the Indian Penal Code (for short Rs. IPC''). The other co-accused of
the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender. The trial Court vide judgment/order dated 4.7.2011 convicted and sentenced the petitioner qua
the commission of offence punishable u/s 411 IPC. The appellate Court in appeal upheld the conviction of the appellant u/s 411 IPC but reduced
his sentence qua imprisonment from two years to one year vide order dated 2.6.2012. Hence, the present petition. After hearing the learned
counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal.
In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner was that on 18.11.2006 he and his co-accused had been found to be in possession of
the stolen laptop. During interrogation, they disclosed that the laptop, mobile phone, cash, gold chain, ear rings etc. were stolen by them and they
were going to sell the same in the market.
Indra Rani had moved a written complaint that she was residing in House No. 107 R Model Town Jalandhar. On 9.11.2006 at about 11.30
a.m., she had gone to Airport to receive her grand daughter and her husband. When she returned back home at 7.30 p.m., she found that a theft
had taken place in her house. Cash amounting to Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-, four bangles, one chain, six pairs of ear rings, a mobile phone and
laptop were missing. On the basis of the same, a formal FIR was registered.
During trial, Indra Rani appeared in the witness box as PW1 and deposed as per the contents of the FIR. She also identified the laptop.
Although the said witness could not produce any document qua purchase of the said laptop on the day she was examined as a witness but the said
fact fails to advance the case of the petitioner. It is not a case where the laptop in question belongs to the petitioner. The laptop in possession of the
petitioner was stolen property. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, have rightly came to the conclusion that the
prosecution had been successful in proving its case. In these circumstances, no ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, this revision
petition is dismissed.