Revision against conviction and sentencing for chain snatching. Court rejected arguments regarding lack of independent witness and first-offender status, dismissing the petition as devoid of merit due to red-handed nature of the offense.
The revision petition was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Revision No. 3297 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 3297 of 2011 Date of decision: 02.01.2012
Amarjit Kaur and others
........ Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent(s)
Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. P S Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners
Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral)
The present revision has been filed against the judgement and order of sentence dated 09.12.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur, convicting and sentencing the petitioners under Section 356 IPC with rigourous imprisonment for one year to each of the accused and fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigourous imprisonment for 15 days as well as against the judgement dated 15.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide which, the judgement and order dated 09.12.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.
Criminal Revision No. 3297 of 2011 2
Complainant-Harinderjit Singh and his mother Surinder Pal Kaur alias Shinder Kaur were waiting for a Bus at Barnala Chowk, Sangrur when three ladies who were also standing at the Bus stand started talking to the complainant's mother. As soon as the Bus arrived, one of the three ladies, stepped into the Bus ahead of the complainant's mother and the remaining two ladies boarded the Bus after the mother of the complainant. One of the ladies pushed the mother of the complainant and the other lady in the process removed a gold chain worn by the mother of the complainant and handed over the same to the third lady accompanying them. Surinderpal Kaur raised noise, on which, the accused ladies tried to escape but the complainant and his mother managed to stop them. Many people gathered at the spot including one Harjit Singh son of Teja Singh. Leaving the three ladies with the mother of the complainant and Harjit Singh, the complainant went to call the police. Lady Constable Manjit Kaur searched the ladies and recovered the gold chain from one of them.
While challenging the judgement and order of sentence dated 09.12.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sangrur as well as the judgement dated 15.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no independent witness was joined and moreover, the two ladies accused namely , Roopo and Bhinder Kaur are the first offenders.
Heard.
The non-joining of the independent witness is not fatal in the facts of the present case. The three accused ladies were apprehended on the
Criminal Revision No. 3297 of 2011 3
spot. The gold chain was also recovered by the police on the spot. The complainant and his mother, whose gold chain was stolen have corroborated the prosecution version. There is no enmity of the complainant with the accused ladies. Thus, there is no reason to falsely implicate them. Thus, there is no merit in the argument of the petitioner that there is no evidence against the petitioners.
The second argument of the learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners No.2 and 3 namely , Roopo and Binder Kaur are the first offenders and therefore, they should be released on probation has also no merit. The incidents of chain snatching are becoming too often. Such incidents are normally an outcome of a plan which has been executed through pre-meditation. Normally, such people manage to run away and therefore, it is difficult to apprehend them. The present case is a case of having been caught red handed. The accused were caught on the spot. One of them, Amarjit Kaur is already facing conviction in other similar case. There is no scope for extending any leniency towards the accused ladies in the facts of the present case.
The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit.
(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge
02.01.2012 mohan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the non-joining of an independent witness affects the conviction in a chain-snatching case.
Whether probation should be granted to first-time offenders caught red-handed in chain-snatching incidents.
Whether the revision petition is maintainable in light of the facts of the case.
Amarjit Kaur and others
State of Punjab
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
