Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Conviction for Robbery, Rules Non-Recovery of Weapon Does Not Nullify Evidence of Victim’s Testimony

Case Name: Ram Mehar v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: January 6, 2015
Citation: CRR No. 2949 of 2014
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Ram Mehar, upholding his conviction under Sections 392 and 120-B IPC. Justice Kuldip Singh held that the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court were based on reliable evidence and required no interference. The Court clarified that mere non-recovery of the pistol allegedly used in the robbery could not discredit the victim’s credible and consistent testimony. It ruled that the recovery of the stolen car at the petitioner’s instance sufficiently linked him to the offence, and the absence of independent witnesses was natural since the crime occurred inside a moving taxi.

Summary: The prosecution case arose from an incident on February 14, 2009, when Mehar Singh hired a taxi from complainant Binder Singh, accompanied by three other men. En route, they stopped at Ratia to pick up another passenger and later diverted toward village Boswal. One of the accused pointed a pistol at the complainant, forced him to the rear seat, and robbed him of ₹4,500 and a Nokia mobile phone before pushing him out of the car near village Shekhupur Soz. During investigation, the police apprehended Ram Mehar, who made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the stolen car.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehabad, convicted the accused under Sections 392 and 120-B IPC, sentencing them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine, while the Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, upheld the conviction but acquitted co-accused Mehar Singh. In revision, the petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the weapon was never recovered, and that there were no independent witnesses.

Justice Kuldip Singh rejected these arguments, observing that the robbery occurred inside a moving vehicle, making the presence of independent witnesses improbable. The complainant’s deposition remained consistent and unshaken, and the recovery of the stolen car at the petitioner’s instance provided corroborative evidence of his involvement. The Court held that non-recovery of the weapon did not vitiate the prosecution’s case when other evidence firmly established the offence.

Decision: The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the revision petition as devoid of merit, affirming the conviction and sentence under Sections 392 and 120-B IPC.