IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 205 RANDHIR STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: Present: MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) 1. conviction dated 16.09.2005/17.09.2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, whereby the revisionist Randhir was convicted under Sections 356/457/380 read with Section 511 of well as the judgment dated 13.07.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Narnaul, upholding the conviction but modifying the order of sentence to run concurrently. 2. 13.11.1999 and 14.11.1999 at about 11:30 p.m., the accused entered the house of complainant Roshan Lal by scaling the wall time, Savitri, wife of the younger brother of the complainant, was asleep in the house wearing a pair of earrings. The accused attempted to snatch the earrings from her e the mother of the complainant and children awoke. The accused tried to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-36-2008 Date of decision: Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Ms. Simerpreet Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chhina, AAG, Haryana MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) The instant revision petition is directed against the judgment of dated 16.09.2005/17.09.2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, whereby the revisionist Randhir was convicted under Sections 356/457/380 read with Section 511 of well as the judgment dated 13.07.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Narnaul, upholding the conviction but modifying the order of sentence to run concurrently. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 13.11.1999 and 14.11.1999 at about 11:30 p.m., the accused entered the house of complainant Roshan Lal by scaling the wall time, Savitri, wife of the younger brother of the complainant, was asleep in the house wearing a pair of earrings. The accused attempted to snatch the earrings from her ears, upon which she raised an alarm. On hearing her cries, the mother of the complainant and children awoke. The accused tried to IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: September 02, 2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , Advocate (Amicus Curiae) Mr. G.S. Chhina, AAG, Haryana. The instant revision petition is directed against the judgment of dated 16.09.2005/17.09.2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, whereby the revisionist Randhir was convicted under Sections 356/457/380 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as the judgment dated 13.07.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, upholding the conviction but modifying the order The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 13.11.1999 and 14.11.1999 at about 11:30 p.m., the accused/revisionist entered the house of complainant Roshan Lal by scaling the wall. At that time, Savitri, wife of the younger brother of the complainant, was asleep in the house wearing a pair of earrings. The accused attempted to snatch the ars, upon which she raised an alarm. On hearing her cries, the mother of the complainant and children awoke. The accused tried to ...Petitioner ...Respondent The instant revision petition is directed against the judgment of dated 16.09.2005/17.09.2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, whereby the revisionist Randhir was convicted under , as learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, upholding the conviction but modifying the order The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the intervening night of /revisionist . At that time, Savitri, wife of the younger brother of the complainant, was asleep in the house wearing a pair of earrings. The accused attempted to snatch the ars, upon which she raised an alarm. On hearing her cries, Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.03 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-36-2008 escape by climbing onto the roof of the house but was apprehended on the spot by the complainant and other villagers. 3. On the basis of this occurrence, FIR No.144 457/356/511 IPC was registered at Police Station Ateli. After completion of investigation, challan was presented and charges were framed. 4. the accused and sen Offence(s) under Section 356 of the IPC 457 of the IPC 379 r/w 511 of the IPC 5. while affirming the conviction, directed that the substantive sentences awarded shall run concurrently. 6. assailed both the impugned judgments primarily on the following grounds: (i) namely Roshan Lal (complainant) and Murti Devi (eyewitness). Their non-examinati 2008 (O&M) escape by climbing onto the roof of the house but was apprehended on the spot by the complainant and other villagers. It was further alleged that some cash was also found missing. On the basis of this occurrence, FIR No.144 457/356/511 IPC was registered at Police Station Ateli. After completion of investigation, challan was presented and charges were framed. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment as follows: Offence(s) under Section Period of sentence imposed IPC SI for 4 months of the IPC SI for 2 years ` 379 r/w 511 of SI for 4 months In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, while affirming the conviction, directed that the substantive sentences awarded shall run concurrently. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing assailed both the impugned judgments primarily on the following grounds: That the prosecution failed to examine the material witnesses, namely Roshan Lal (complainant) and Murti Devi (eyewitness). Their examination, it is urged, is fatal to the case of the prosecution. -2- escape by climbing onto the roof of the house but was apprehended on the It was further alleged that some cash was also found missing. On the basis of this occurrence, FIR No.144 dated 14.11.1999 under Section 457/356/511 IPC was registered at Police Station Ateli. After completion of investigation, challan was presented and charges were framed. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, convicted tenced him to undergo simple imprisonment as follows:- Fine imposed Period of sentence in default of payment of fine - - `2,000/- SI for 20 days - - In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, while affirming the conviction, directed that the substantive sentences appearing for the revisionist has assailed both the impugned judgments primarily on the following grounds:- examine the material witnesses, namely Roshan Lal (complainant) and Murti Devi (eyewitness). Their on, it is urged, is fatal to the case of the prosecution. escape by climbing onto the roof of the house but was apprehended on the It was further alleged that some cash was also found missing. dated 14.11.1999 under Section 457/356/511 IPC was registered at Police Station Ateli. After completion of The learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, convicted In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, while affirming the conviction, directed that the substantive sentences for the revisionist has examine the material witnesses, namely Roshan Lal (complainant) and Murti Devi (eyewitness). Their Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.03 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-36-2008 (ii) from serious infirmities. While PW4 Lal Singh claimed to have identified the accused during examination that the accused had fled from the place of occurrence prior to his arrival. (iii) proving that the accused actually committed lurking house trespass as required under Section 457 IPC, and in absence of reliable evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained. 7. findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below by arguing that PW1 Constable Om Prakash on receipt of telephonic information, thereby lending credence the prosecution. Further, the ocular testimony of PW4 Lal Singh and PW5 Savitri is consistent, cogent and trustworthy. Both have categorically deposed regarding the accused entering the house fateful day and attempting 8. complainant asserted that both the rightly held that reasonable doubt. Therefore, no interference was warranted in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 2008 (O&M) That the testimonies of PW4 Lal Singh from serious infirmities. While PW4 Lal Singh claimed to have identified the accused during examination-in-chief, in cross that the accused had fled from the place of occurrence prior to his arrival. That the prosecution failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that the accused actually committed lurking house trespass as required under Section 457 IPC, and in absence of reliable evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained. Per contra, learned State counsel, has supported the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below by arguing that PW1 Constable Om Prakash promptly recorded on receipt of telephonic information, thereby lending credence the prosecution. Further, the ocular testimony of PW4 Lal Singh and PW5 is consistent, cogent and trustworthy. Both have categorically regarding the accused entering the house and attempting to snatch earrings Still further, it has been urged that there was no motive for the complainant for falsely implicating the accused. Furthermore, it has been asserted that both the learned trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court rightly held that the prosecution had successfully reasonable doubt. Therefore, no interference was warranted in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. -3- That the testimonies of PW4 Lal Singh and PW5 Savitri suffer from serious infirmities. While PW4 Lal Singh claimed to have identified chief, in cross-examination, he admitted that the accused had fled from the place of occurrence prior to his arrival. hat the prosecution failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that the accused actually committed lurking house trespass as required under Section 457 IPC, and in absence of reliable evidence, the , learned State counsel, has supported the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below by arguing that recorded DDR No.4 on 14.11.1999, on receipt of telephonic information, thereby lending credence to the case of the prosecution. Further, the ocular testimony of PW4 Lal Singh and PW5 is consistent, cogent and trustworthy. Both have categorically regarding the accused entering the house at 11:30 p.m. on the from Savitri. Still further, it has been urged that there was no motive for the for falsely implicating the accused. Furthermore, it has been trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, no interference was warranted in the revisional and PW5 Savitri suffer from serious infirmities. While PW4 Lal Singh claimed to have identified examination, he admitted hat the prosecution failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that the accused actually committed lurking house trespass as required under Section 457 IPC, and in absence of reliable evidence, the , learned State counsel, has supported the concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below by arguing that DDR No.4 on 14.11.1999, to the case of the prosecution. Further, the ocular testimony of PW4 Lal Singh and PW5 is consistent, cogent and trustworthy. Both have categorically at 11:30 p.m. on the Still further, it has been urged that there was no motive for the for falsely implicating the accused. Furthermore, it has been trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, no interference was warranted in the revisional Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.03 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-36-2008 9. relevant material placed on record. 10. Devi is fatal to the case of the prosecution, cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts of the present case. The law is well non-examination of testimony of other prosecution case beyond doubt. 11. occurrence, has categorically deposed that the accused the intervening night of 13.11.1999 and 14.11.1999 her earrings. Her testimony withstood the test of cross the case of the prosecution regarding the presence and apprehension of the accused at the spot. 12. Curiae, in the testimony of PW4 Lal Singh regarding the sequence of apprehension of the accused, does not case of the prosecution. The core fact remains consistent entered the house unlawfully during night hours and attempted to rob the victim of her ornaments. 2008 (O&M) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material placed on record. The contention that non-examination of Roshan Lal and Murti Devi is fatal to the case of the prosecution, cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts of the present case. The law is well examination of every cited witness is not testimony of other examined witnesses inspires confidence and proves prosecution case beyond doubt. In the present case, PW5 Savitri, who is the victim of the occurrence, has categorically deposed that the accused the intervening night of 13.11.1999 and 14.11.1999 her earrings. Her testimony stands firm in material particulars and has withstood the test of cross-examination. PW4 Lal Singh has also supported he prosecution regarding the presence and apprehension of the accused at the spot. The slight discrepancy, as pointed out by the learned , in the testimony of PW4 Lal Singh regarding the sequence of apprehension of the accused, does not materially affect the substratum of the case of the prosecution. The core fact remains consistent entered the house unlawfully during night hours and attempted to rob the victim of her ornaments. -4- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the examination of Roshan Lal and Murti Devi is fatal to the case of the prosecution, cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts of the present case. The law is well-settled that not per se fatal, so long as the examined witnesses inspires confidence and proves In the present case, PW5 Savitri, who is the victim of the occurrence, has categorically deposed that the accused entered the house on the intervening night of 13.11.1999 and 14.11.1999, and attempted to snatch stands firm in material particulars and has examination. PW4 Lal Singh has also supported he prosecution regarding the presence and apprehension of the The slight discrepancy, as pointed out by the learned Amicus , in the testimony of PW4 Lal Singh regarding the sequence of materially affect the substratum of the case of the prosecution. The core fact remains consistent – that the accused entered the house unlawfully during night hours and attempted to rob the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the examination of Roshan Lal and Murti Devi is fatal to the case of the prosecution, cannot be accepted in the settled that long as the examined witnesses inspires confidence and proves In the present case, PW5 Savitri, who is the victim of the entered the house on natch stands firm in material particulars and has examination. PW4 Lal Singh has also supported he prosecution regarding the presence and apprehension of the Amicus , in the testimony of PW4 Lal Singh regarding the sequence of materially affect the substratum of the that the accused entered the house unlawfully during night hours and attempted to rob the Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.03 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-36-2008 13. Om Prakash (Investigating Officer), who reached the spot, and recorded the statements of all the concerned promptly. No enmity or ill shown between the accused and the complainant party, which could lead to false implication. 14. disbelieve the prosecution version. Lower Appellate Court committed lurking house trespass and attempted t Savitri, there Section 511 IPC. 15. infirmity, illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, which are upheld. 16. during this entire criminal proceedings. It is also not disputed that he has not been involved in any other criminal case either prior to or after the occurrence, and has maintained good conduct. The petitioner has a eight months of incarceration. 2008 (O&M) The evidence of PW5 Savitri is duly corroborated by PW2 ASI Om Prakash (Investigating Officer), who reached the spot, and recorded the ents of all the concerned promptly. No enmity or ill shown between the accused and the complainant party, which could lead to false implication. Thus, on a holistic appraisal, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the prosecution version. The learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court had recorded concurrent findings that the accused committed lurking house trespass and attempted t Savitri, thereby attracting the provisions of Sections 356, 457, 379 read with Section 511 IPC. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, which are upheld. A prayer has, therefore, been made for taking a lenient view uring this entire period, the petitioner has faced the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings. It is also not disputed that he has not been involved in any other criminal case either prior to or after the occurrence, and has maintained good conduct. The petitioner has a months of incarceration. -5- The evidence of PW5 Savitri is duly corroborated by PW2 ASI Om Prakash (Investigating Officer), who reached the spot, and recorded the ents of all the concerned promptly. No enmity or ill-will has been shown between the accused and the complainant party, which could lead to a Thus, on a holistic appraisal, this Court finds no reason to The learned trial Court as well as the had recorded concurrent findings that the accused committed lurking house trespass and attempted to snatch the earrings of y attracting the provisions of Sections 356, 457, 379 read with In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the A prayer has, therefore, been made for taking a lenient view as period, the petitioner has faced the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings. It is also not disputed that he has not been involved in any other criminal case either prior to or after the occurrence, and has maintained good conduct. The petitioner has already undergone more than The evidence of PW5 Savitri is duly corroborated by PW2 ASI Om Prakash (Investigating Officer), who reached the spot, and recorded the will has been a Thus, on a holistic appraisal, this Court finds no reason to The learned trial Court as well as the had recorded concurrent findings that the accused o snatch the earrings of y attracting the provisions of Sections 356, 457, 379 read with In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the as period, the petitioner has faced the ordeal of protracted criminal proceedings. It is also not disputed that he has not been involved in any other criminal case either prior to or after the occurrence, and has lready undergone more than Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.03 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-36-2008 17. long passage of time since the incident, the clean antecedents of the petitioner, which stand this Court by the learned State counsel, already undergone, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met by reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone while enhancing the quantum of fine. 18. the substantive sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. 19. from ₹2,000/ shall be deposited in the A/c No.001934001000589, IFSC Bank, within a period of two months from today. 20. petitioner to deposit the enhanced fine before the learned trial/successor Court within a period of two months from today, sentence shall not accrue to him, and he shall be requir remaining part of the sentence awarded by the Courts below. 2008 (O&M) Having regard to the aforesaid long passage of time since the incident, the clean antecedents of the which stand reflected in his custody certificate, produced before this Court by the learned State counsel, and the period of imprisonment y undergone, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met by reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone while enhancing the quantum of fine. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction the substantive sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced ,000/- to ₹5,000/- under Section 457 shall be deposited in the Punjab Chief Minister 001934001000589, IFSC-TPSC0000019, Punjab State within a period of two months from today. It is made clear that in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the enhanced fine before the learned trial/successor Court within a period of two months from today, sentence shall not accrue to him, and he shall be requir remaining part of the sentence awarded by the Courts below. -6- Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, including the long passage of time since the incident, the clean antecedents of the reflected in his custody certificate, produced before and the period of imprisonment y undergone, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met by reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone while enhancing the quantum of fine. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner, the substantive sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment awarded to him is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced 457 of the IPC. The enhanced fine Punjab Chief Minister Relief Fund, TPSC0000019, Punjab State Cooperative within a period of two months from today. that in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the enhanced fine before the learned trial/successor Court within a period of two months from today, the benefit of reduction of sentence shall not accrue to him, and he shall be required to undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded by the Courts below. circumstances, including the long passage of time since the incident, the clean antecedents of the reflected in his custody certificate, produced before and the period of imprisonment y undergone, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met by reducing the substantive sentence to the of the petitioner, the substantive sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment awarded to him However, the fine imposed upon the petitioner is enhanced The enhanced fine Relief Fund, Cooperative that in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the enhanced fine before the learned trial/successor the benefit of reduction of ed to undergo the Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.03 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR-36-2008 21. disposed of. September 02 Jaspreet Kaur 2008 (O&M) With the aforesaid modifications, the revision petition stands September 02, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -7- modifications, the revision petition stands (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No modifications, the revision petition stands Jaspreet Kaur 2025.09.03 11:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh