- (1.) The symposium of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, on 17.7.2001, complainant Ram Nagina (PW1) had gone to visit his friend. As soon as, he came back, in the meantime, the lock of his premises was found broken. He found petitioner Vinod Kumar and his other co-convicts in his room. They committed the theft of purse containing cash, voter card and other articles from the residential house of the complainant. On seeing him (complainant), they tried to flee away. In the wake of his alarm, they were apprehended by the public. The matter was reported to the police. They were taken in custody at the spot and a criminal case was registered against them, vide FIR No.204 dated 17.7.2001, for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 380, 411 and 454 IPC by the police of Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh.
(2.) Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court convicted & sentenced the convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 18 months, to pay a fine of Rs.200/-each, 12 months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 380 and 454 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. In case of default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. However, both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 2.4.2007.
(3.) Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appeal filed by petitioner Vinod Kumar was dismissed as well, by the appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment dated 25.2.2012.;