CRA-S-165-SB-2005 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S-165-SB-2005 (O&M) Reserved on: 02.07.2026 Date of Decision: 11.09.2026 Ravinder and another ......Appellants Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG, Haryana. SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) : This is appeal against conviction. By virtue of judgment of conviction dated 11.01.2005 and order on the point of quantum of sentence dated 13.01.2005, the appellants have been convicted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhiwani, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only. Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment and order the instant appeal has been preferred. 2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR No.9 dated 13.01.2003, Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani, was lodged for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 392, 394 and 397 of Indian Penal Code, at the instance of ‘Ramesh Chand’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the above named complainant that he was owner of a Maruti van bearing registration No.HR- 26E-7725, and that he was using the same for carrying passengers on hire. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-165-SB-2005 (O&M) 2 According to above named complainant on 09.01.2003 an unknown person hired the above mentioned vehicle at Bhiwari, and that three persons boarded his car. The complainant further stated that the above said passengers came to Bhiwani where one of them alighted from the car. As per complainant the remaining two instructed him to go to a place situated at a distance of about 20-25 kilometers (approximately), and that while going there he stopped his car on road side, at about 7.15 P.M., for urination. According to above named complainant when he was easing himself the youths sitting in the car drove away the same. It was also stated by the complainant that all the documents related to abovesaid vehicle, i.e. the registration certificate, insurance certificate, and driving licence of the appellants, were in the car itself. 3. It is case of the prosecution that in view of above mentioned report formal FIR of this case was lodged and the investigation taken up. According to prosecution during the course of investigation the complainant approached the Investigating Officer again and got his supplementary statement. In his supplementary statement it was stated by the complainant that the above said assailants had forcibly taken away his car, and that in that process they had inflicted injuries on his person also. According to prosecution in view of above mentioned supplementary statement of complainant, firstly the complainant was got examined medico-legally, and thereafter the requisite material, i.e. personal belongings of the complainant, which were set on fire were seized. As per case set-out by the prosecution, in view of changed scenario, Sections 392, 394 and 397 IPC were invoked in this case. 4. As per prosecution in the wake of above mentioned two statements of the complainant, the investigation was carried out and during the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-165-SB-2005 (O&M) 3 course of investigation the appellants along with their co-accused namely ‘Sarjit’ were apprehended and stolen vehicle was recovered from their possession. It is case of the prosecution that on completion of usual formalities of investigation the appellants and their co-accused ‘Sarjit’ were sent to the Court to face trial. 5. The record reveals that the above mentioned trial culminated into judgment of conviction dated 11.01.2005 and order of sentence dated 13.01.2005 hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned judgment and order’ respectively. Vide impugned order following sentences were awarded to the appellants:- Name of convicts Offence under Section Sentence Ravinder and Upender 392 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each. 394 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 6. To discharge its burden of proving the charges against the appellants, the prosecution in the instant case had relied upon documentary as well as oral evidence. The documents proved and marked with exhibits, by the prosecution, were:- Ex.PA - Statement of Ramesh Chand (the complainant) MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-165-SB-2005 (O&M) 4 Ex.PA/1 - Endorsement of Police on Ex.PA Ex.PA/2 - Copy of Formal FIR of this case Ex.PB - Rough Site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PC - Seizure memo of clothes of the complainant Ex.PD - Seizure memo of button, coins and ashes Ex.PE - Disclosure statement of appellant-convict Sarjit Ex.PF - Seizure memo of Maruti van Ex.PG - Disclosure statement dated 17.01.2003 of appellant-convict Ravinder Ex.PH - Memo of identification of place of occurrence by convict Ravinder Ex.PJ - Memo of identification of place of occurrence by convict Sarjit Ex.PK - Disclosure statement dated 18.01.2003 of appellant-convict Ravinder Ex.PL - Disclosure statement dated 18.01.2003 of appellant-convict Sarjit Ex.PM - Disclosure statement of appellant-convict Upender Ex.PN - Seizure memo of currency note from the appellant-convict Sarjit Ex.PO - Seizure memo of currency note from the appellant-convict Ravinder Ex.PP - Rough site plan of place of recovery, from Sarjit Ex.PQ - Rough site plan of place of recovery, from Ravinder Ex.PR - Seizure memo of documents from the appellant-convict Upender Ex.PS - Rough site plan of place of recovery, from Upender MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-165-SB-2005 (O&M) 5 Ex.PS - Statement of PW Ramesh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PT - Statement of Bahadur Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PU - Scaled site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PV - Carbon copy of Medico-legal report of the complainant Ex.PV/1 - Request by the police official for medical examination of the complainant Ex.PW - Application by the police seeking for the medical opinion regarding injuries of the complainant Ex.PW/1 - Opinion rendered by the Medical Officer Ex.PX - Site plan of recovery of maruti van Ex.PY - Application for test identification parade Ex.P10 - Certificate of insurance of vehicle, i.e. HR-26E-7725 Exs.P11 to 15 - Insurance Certificates of vehicle, i.e. HR-26E-7725 Ex.P16 - Pollution Control Certificate of vehicle, i.e. HR-26E-7725 Ex.P17 - Driving licence of Ramesh, the complainant Ex.P18 - Registration Certificate of maruti van Ex.P19 - Election voter identity card of Vimla Ex.P1 - Shirt Ex.P2 - Pants Ex.P3 - Jersey Ex.P4 - Jacket Ex.P5 - Button Ex.P6 - Coin Ex.P7 - Ash MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-165-SB-2005 (O&M) 6 7. To provide support and corroboration to the above-mentioned documentary evidence, as many as 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. They were:- PW-1 - Sub Inspector Dharambir PW-2 - Assistant Sub Inspector Shree Bhagwan PW-3 - Assistant Sub Inspector Jai Pal PW-4 - Sub Inspector Raghubir Singh PW-5 - EHC Sahab Singh PW-6 - Ramesh Chand complainant PW-7 - Bahadur Singh PW-8 - Pale Ram Patwari PW-9 - Dr. Anil Sharma PW-10 - Inspector Ram Avtar 8. Once the prosecution evidence was complete, the learned trial Court completed all the essential formalities, enshrined under Section 313 CrPC. Thereafter, opportunity of defence evidence was afforded to the appellants, but no witness in his defence evidence was examined by the appellants. 9. When the evidence of both the parties was complete, the learned trial Court gave opportunity to the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellants to address arguments. Thereafter, a judgment of conviction, against the appellants for the commission of offence under Sections 392 and 394 IPC was pronounced. Accordingly, the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment, as detailed hereinabove. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-165-SB-2005 (O&M) 7 10. Heard. 11. It has been contended on behalf of appellants that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are perverse and unsustainable. According to learned counsel for the appellants, merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, the unreliable and self-contradictory evidence adduced by the prosecution had been believed by the learned trial Court. As per learned counsel for the appellants, the learned trial Court had failed to apply its judicial mind, and that, merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises the findings of conviction of appellants under Sections 392 and 394 IPC were recorded. 12. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned trial Court ignored this cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution had to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was grossly inadequate, to draw an inference that all the necessary ingredients, meant for the commission of offence, for which the appellants were convicted had been established. In view of above, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the case against the appellants could not be proved by the prosecution, but erroneously the learned trial Court has returned the finding of conviction. 13. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellants has also contented that instant case is a case wherein very strange development had taken place during the course of investigation. According to learned counsel for the appellants as per case developed by the investigating agency, initially MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-165-SB-2005 (O&M) 8 the complainant had stated that his vehicle was stolen when he was urinating on the road side, but later on he came forward with altogether different allegations-, i.e. robbery under threat. According to learned counsel for the appellants it fails to convince a prudent mind that a victim of robbery would have reported the incident of theft to the police at the first instance and later on magnified the same by reporting that he was victim of an offence of robbery. 14. It has been further contended by leaned counsel for the appellants that for the sake of arguments, even if the above mentioned unnatural and unreliable story, set out by the prosecution, has to be believed, in order to prove above mentioned story with regard to offence under Section 397 IPC, the first and foremost duty of the prosecution, was to prove the use of deadly weapon at the time of offence. As per learned counsel for the appellants in the present case no such evidence was led and the weapon was not recovered. 15. In addition to above, the learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that with regard to alleged theft or robbery the case of the prosecution did not find support from the statements of complainant himself, who specifically deposed before the learned trial Court that the incident of theft was not committed by the appellants, and that he never got recorded his supplementary statement, Ex.PS, before the police, wherein allegation of robbery were levelled. While assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the legal propositions of law involved in the instant case, and that impugned judgment of conviction is not sustainable in the eyes of law, and deserves to be set aside. MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-165-SB-2005 (O&M) 9 16. The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel in the present case in order to prove allegations against the prosecution as many as ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution, and that all of them have supported the prosecution case in all material particulars, including the allegations of causing injuries on the person of complainant. According to learned State counsel the above mentioned evidence being thoroughly consistent deserves to be believed. 17. While defending the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence it has been contended by the learned State counsel that no error, either of judgment or law, was committed by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment & order, and that on proper appreciation of evidence a right conclusion was drawn by the learned trial Court, while pronouncing the impugned judgment of conviction. 18. In view of above mentioned arguments the learned State counsel has contended that there is no scope for indulgence and interference in the impugned judgment, and therefore, the same deserves to be upheld. As per learned State counsel, the present appeal being devoid of merit deserves dismissal. 19. The record has been perused carefully. 20. In order to prove above mentioned allegations the star witness of the prosecution was PW-6 (complainant). The PW-6, when he appeared in the witness-box, did not support the prosecution case firstly, with regard to identity of the appellants as assailants and secondly, with regard to contents of his MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-165-SB-2005 (O&M) 10 supplementary statement, which led to invoking of Sections 392, 394 and 397 IPC in the instant case. 21. The PW-6 in his deposition came forward with a stand that his car was hired by some persons at Bhiwari for Tosham, and that on way near village Dulhedi he got down from the car for urinating, and that his car was driven away by the passengers. However, according to PW-6, the appellants and their co-accused were not the persons who had snatched his car. In view of above mentioned deposition once it was observed by the learned Public Prosecutor that PW-6 was not supporting the prosecution case, he was declared hostile and subjected to cross-examination. However, in his cross-examination the PW-6 deposed that the supplementary statement, Ex.PS, was never made by him before the police. In his cross-examination the PW-6 reiterated the fact that the appellants and their co-accused were not involved in the incident of snatching of his car. With regard to his signature on seizure memo Ex.PC, the PW6 deposed that his signatures were obtained by the police party on blank papers. 22. In the present case to prove that supplementary statement was made by the complainant before inspector ‘Ram Avtar’, the prosecution had examined ‘Bahadur Singh’ as PW-7. The testimony of PW-7 carried a good probative value, as he was an independent witness of the alleged supplementary statement of the complainant. However, the PW-7, too, had not supported the prosecution case with regard to the plea that the PW-7 had suffered supplementary statement in his presence. Once the PW-7 did not support the prosecution case qua above aspect, he, too, was declared hostile and subjected to cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor. But in the MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-165-SB-2005 (O&M) 11 cross-examination also the PW-7 remained firm on the same stand, and testified that statement Ex.PT was not given by him to the police. As per PW-7 his signatures on some blank papers were obtained by the police, which might have been used for preparing Ex.PC. 23. The above mentioned testimonies of prosecution witnesses, PW-6 & PW-7, who were the most material witnesses demolished the very foundation of the prosecution case, with regard to the fact that an incident of robbery, while using deadly weapon, had taken place wherein the complainant was a victim and his car had been forcibly taken away. 24. In remaining part of evidence several supporting witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The PW-1 amongst them was a witness who had initially recorded the statement of complainant. The above mentioned statement was the base for lodging the FIR Ex.PA/2. The PW-1 had simply proved the above mentioned statement, as Ex.PA/1. 25. Other material witnesses examined by the prosecution were PW-2 ASI ‘Shree Bhagwan’ and PW-10 Inspector ‘Ram Avtar’. Both of them supported the prosecution case with regard to the fact that on 15.01.2003, i.e. two days after the incident, the complainant had approached CIA Inspector ‘Ram Avtar’, and that in the presence of Sarpanch of the village namely ‘Bahadur Singh’ (the PW-7) he got his supplementary statement Ex.PS recorded. With regard to recovery of vehicle from the possession of appellants and their co-accused too, the PW-2 had supported the prosecution case. 26. Another official witness, i.e. PW-10, Inspector’ Ram Avtar’, who was instrumental in recording the supplementary statement of complainant, Ex.PS, and recovered the stolen vehicle from possession of appellants and their MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-165-SB-2005 (O&M) 12 co-accused, was examined as PW-10. The PW-10 in his testimony duly supported the prosecution case with regard to the fact that complainant had made supplementary statement Ex.PS, and that the stolen vehicle was recovered from the possession of appellants and their co-accused. In the present case several other formal witnesses, too, were examined by the prosecution, but their testimonies were formal and supportive in nature, only. 27. As far as the above mentioned evidence adduced by the prosecution was concerned in order to analyze the same the most important component to be considered by this Court was as to whether in the light of testimonies of PW-6 and PW-7, the testimonies of official witnesses PW-2 and PW-10 should have been believed. The answer to the above mentioned query was emphatic no. For arriving at the above mentioned decision, following were the relevant factors: (i) that the first version reported by the complainant to the police was with regard to theft of his vehicle, and no robbery on gun point was alleged. Being the first version without adequate evidence, the subsequent version could not have been believed; (ii) that the supplementary statement allegedly got recorded by the complainant was two days after the incident, and qua abovesaid supplementary statement, the complainant had not supported the prosecution case; (iii) that otherwise also it was not believable, as it failed to convince a prudent mind, that a person who suffered injuries in the incident of robbery, committed while using deadly weapons, would have reported only the factum of theft of his vehicle to MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-165-SB-2005 (O&M) 13 the police; (iv) that no ‘Test Identification Parade’ during the course of investigation was got conducted by the Investigating Officer, and the PW-10 in his testimony had taken a lame excuse that the accused had refused to participate in the ‘Test Identification Parade’. Had it been so, at least PW-10 should have placed on record the application whereby a request for ‘Test Identification Parade’ was conducted. But any such document was not placed on record by the Investigating Officer; (v) that in order to prove identity of the appellants as assailants who were responsible for snatching the car of complainant, the prosecution had relied upon on two types of evidence. The first type of evidence consisted of eye-witness account of the victim, i.e. PW-6, and the second aspect was to prove it with the help of official witnesses who were present at the time of recovery of stolen vehicle from the possession of appellants; On analysis of the above mentioned evidence, adduced by the prosecution, it transpires that on one side there was testimony of eye-witness who happened to be the victim of the incident and on the other hand there were testimonies of two official witnesses. In my considered opinion every prudent legal mind in such a situation would believe the contents of testimony of public witness, i.e. PW-6. The PW-6, in his examination-in-chief itself, had not supported the prosecution case with regard to the fact that incident of snatching of his car, MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-165-SB-2005 (O&M) 14 on 13.01.2003, was committed by the appellants and their co- accused. Once the PW-6 had specifically denied that the appellants were not involved in the robbery of his car, in my considered opinion the testimonies of official witnesses should not have been believed. 28. In the present case, otherwise also the probative value of testimonies of PW2 and PW-10 was very low, because the Investigating Officer (PW-10) and his supporting witness (PW-2) had tried to create a story two days after the incident, wherein the incident of theft of vehicle had been converted into an offence of robbery while using deadly weapons. 29. If the deadly weapon was used during the course of investigation, then it should have been recovered from the possession of appellants or their co-accused. But the failure of Investigating Officer to recover any such weapon further impacted the prosecution evidence in negative. 30. In the present case charge for the commission of offence punishable under Sections, 392, 394 and 397 IPC were framed by the learned trial Court. However, in view of the fact that complainant himself deposed that in the incident no weapon was used and no injury was suffered by him, in my opinion, the allegations with regard to offence under Sections 394 and 397 IPC were totally false and baseless. 31. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned factors, in my considered opinion the evidence adduced by the prosecution for proving charge for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 392 and 394 IPC was grossly inadequate, unreliable, inconsistent and contradictory. Since such type of evidence has been believed by the learned MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-165-SB-2005 (O&M) 15 trial Court, while returning the finding of conviction of appellants, in my considered opinion, the above mentioned finding recorded by the learned trial Court is not sustainable and needs interference and indulgence of appellate jurisdiction vested in this Court. 32. Thus, in the exercise of above mentioned jurisdiction, it is hereby observed that an error of judgment was committed by the learned trial Court while believing the above mentioned evidence and returning the finding with regard to conviction of the appellants. 33. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussions, it is hereby held that by accepting the present appeal the judgment of conviction and order on the point of quantum of sentence deserve to be set aside. Thus, by accepting the present appeal the impugned judgment of conviction and order on the point of quantum of sentence are hereby set aside, and the appellants are hereby acquitted of the charges framed against them. 34. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of, accordingly. (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Pronounced on: 11.09.2026 Manoj Bhutani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2026.09.11 19:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document