State Of Haryana vs Parveen Kumar

CRA-AD-435-2019 (O&M) 1
208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-AD-435-2019 (O&M)
State of Haryana ...Appellant
Vs.
Parveen Kumar ...Respondent
1. Date when Order was reserved 07.08.2026
2. Date of Pronouncement of Order 05.11.2026
3. Date of uploading order 13.11.2026
4. Whether operative part or full FULL
order is pronounced
5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of Not Applicable
full order, and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present: Mr. Ved Parkash, Sr.DAG, Haryana
Mr. Brijesh Akansha, Advocate for the respondent.
*
DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J
CRM-52282-2025
Application is allowed as prayed for.
Annexure A-1 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
CRA-AD-435-2019
Appellant-State of Haryana has preferred this appeal to challenge
the judgment dated 08.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Kaithal whereby respondent has been acquitted from the charges framed
against him for having committed offence punishable under Sections 436, 420
and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
VANITA
2026.11.13 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-435-2019 (O&M) 2
2. The brief facts emanating from the pleadings of the case are that
on 14.02.2014, a telephonic message was received in the police station from
the Manager PNB, Kaithal regarding damage caused to the ATM machine. An
application i.e. EX.PA was moved wherein complainant, Sh. Hari Chand
Grover, Manager, PNB Kaithal alleged that he received information regarding
damage caused to the ATM, on which he reached the spot and informed the
higher officers and the police authorities. Parveen Kumar and Naresh Kumar,
who perform the work of feeding the cash in the ATM and the ATM Engineer
also visited the spot, where they found that Rs.22,05,700/- have been taken
away by an unknown person. It was further alleged that CCTV, DVR Monitor,
UPS and batteries, which were kept in cabin behind the ATM were also set on
fire. Accordingly, the FIR was registered under Sections 380 and 436 IPC.
3. Thereafter, the trial was proceeded, wherein the prosecution
examined as many as 22 witnesses and relied upon Ex.PA to Ex.PQQ.
Subsequently, the public prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence. The
statement of accused was recorded in consonance with the spirit of Section 313
Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded his
false implication in the present case. The accused led his defence evidence by
examining total 3 witnesses and tendering relevant documents, and closed his
evidence.
4. Based upon the entire oral as well as documentary evidence
adduced by the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide
judgment dated 08.05.2017, acquitted the respondent by passing the aforesaid
judgment as the prosecution was not able to prove its case against the
respondent. Aggrieved by the acquittal of respondent, the present appeal has
VANITA
2026.11.13 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-435-2019 (O&M) 3
been filed by the appellant challenging the said judgment of acquittal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial
Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution wherein
the material prosecution witnesses had consistently supported the prosecution
case, but their testimonies were neither objectively evaluated nor appreciated in
their correct perspective. Despite the cogent evidence on record, the trial Court
wrongly concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against
respondent. It is, therefore, prayed that the judgment dated 08.05.2017 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal acquitting respondent be set aside.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
reviewed the Trial Court record.
7. The sole question before this Court is whether the impugned
judgment dated 08.05.2017 qua acquittal of respondent requires interference
after perusal of the impugned judgment and the evidence placed on record. The
relevant findings regarding the acquittal of respondent recorded by the learned
Trial Court are reproduced herein-under:
“17. It is well settled proposition of law, in order to bring home
the guilt of criminal breach of trust, proof of entrustment is
essential. If entrustment is not proved then offence of criminal
breach of trust is not proved.
18. Now, coming to the alleged confessions and recoveries from
accused.
Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that no
confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a
person accused of any offence.
Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that no
confession made by any person while he is in custody of a police
officer unless it be made in the immediate presence of a
Magistrate shall be proved against such person. Section 27 is an
exception to sections 25 and 26 and is a proviso to section 26. It
makes admissible so much of the statement of the accused, which
leads to the discovery of a fact deposed to by him and connected
with the crime irrespective of the question whether it is
confessional or not.
VANITA
2026.11.13 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-435-2019 (O&M) 4
Ex.PU, Ex.PY, Ex.PBB, Ex.PCC and Ex.PHH are the disclosure
statements alleged to be made by accused Parveen Kumar. All
these disclosure statements were recorded while accused was in
police custody. Ex.P2 is a recovery memo of hard disc, CPU and
of 5 lacs allegedly got recovered by the accused from his house
in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PY. Ex.PDD is a
recovery memo of 3,40,000/-allegedly got recovered by accused
Parveen from his house in pursuance of the disclosure statement
Ex. PCC. It has come in evidence that house of the accused is
joint house and same is situated in a village. Investigating
Officer and other witnesses have also admitted this fact but no
independent witness joined from village at the time of alleged
recovery of 5 lacs and 3,40,000/- from the house of accused
Parveen. Non joining of independent witness has created a
serious doubt about the said recovery. Perusal of other recovery
memos also shows that no independent witness was joined at the
time of alleged recovery from the fields of Shri Abhey Ram. Even
Abhey Ram or other members of his family not joined during the
alleged recovery of CPU.
In case law titled as Girdhari (supra), Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India held that no witness to recovery was
joined. Recovery memo had the signatures of only police officer.
No credence can be attached to such recovery. Other evidence
also extremely sketchy. Conviction of accused set aside.
So far recovery of hard disc, CPU etc. in persuance
of disclosure statement of accused Parveen is concerned, the
evidence of PW-2 Sandeep Dimri, is relevant. He identified CPU
and hard disc of ATM in question. During course of his cross-
examination, stated that every hard disc and CPU have a
separate number to identify the same. He further stated that he
can not tell that of what serial number CPU and hard disc were
installed at the ATM of PNB, Kaithal. Neither he nor his
company provided any serial number of CPU or hard disc to the
police which were installed at ATM. He further stated that the
hard disc are easily available in the market.
Ex.PE is report given by PW-2 Sandeep Dimri and
Ex.PF is identification memo of CPU and hard disc. Neither in
report nor in identification memo number of disc and CPU are
given. In given circumstances, it can not be infer that said disc
and CPU are of ATM in question.
So far as recovery of gold chain with locket and
gold diamond rind and ACs is concerned, prosecution examined
PW-6 Anand Sharma, Rajindera Radios, Kurukshetra and PW-
20 Vimal Goel, Manager M/s Om Parkash and sons, Karnal to
prove the ownership of said articles. Perusal of testimony of PW-
20 Vimal Goel, shows that the said articles were purchased in
2012 whereas the alleged occurrence in question is of 2014.
Moreover, these articles are shown to be purchased by the
mother and father of the accused, who made payment by debit
card. Perusal of testimony of PW-6 Anand Sharma shows that
accused purchased two ACs vide receipts Ex.PN and Ex. PO in
VANITA
2026.11.13 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-435-2019 (O&M) 5
2012 and 2013 respectively. Prosecution failed to produce any
evidence to show as to how these articles are connected with the
alleged offence.
19. Moreover, as noticed above, prosecution failed to produce
detail of currency notes which were stated to be stolen from the
ATM. Numbers of the currency notes and their denomination not
provided by the prosecution. In such circumstances, how
prosecution can say that recovered money is same, which was
stolen from ATM.
On the other hand, accused examined three
witnesses to prove that said money was planted upon him. DW-1
Raghbir Singh, father of the accused produced agreement Ex.
D1, to prove that he received 6 lacs a sale consideration of his
land and further produced pronote Ex.D4 vide which he took a
loan of 3 lacs from Mahavir. He categorically deposed that he
handed over 5 lacs and 3,50,000/- to SI Kashmir Singh under
pressure.
DW-2 Jai Narain, has corroborated and supported
the version of DW-1. He deposed that he paid 5 lacs to his
brother Raghbir Singh, who executed an agreement to sell in his
favour. Ex.D1 agreement bears his signatures as well as
signature of Raghbir Singh DW-1.
DW-3 is Mahavir. He deposed that he advanced a
loan of 3 lacs to Raghbir Singh vide pronote Ex.D4.
20. Now, coming to the alleged offence of cheating punishable
under section 420 of Indian Penal Code. It is apparent from the
definition of offence of cheating, the prosecution must prove the
following ingredients:
(i) there should be a fraudulent dishonest inducement of a person
by deceiving him,
(ii) the person to deceive should be induced to deliver any
property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain
property,
(iii) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do
or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he was
not so deceived.
21. However, in the present case, it is not a case of prosecution
that accused Parveen induced the bank manager or other
officials of the bank to deliver the money or manager or other
officials of the bank delivered the said money to accused
Pardeep on his inducement. Perusal of testimony of witnesses
examined by the prosecution shows that none of the prosecution
witnesses has alleged that he was ever induced to deliver the
money by accused Pardeep or he delivered the money on his
inducement. There is no iota of evidence to prove the evidence
punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code.
22. Now, coming to the offence punishable under section 436 of
Indian Penal Code. There is no direct evidence to prove that
accused set the ATM on ablaze. None of the witnesses deposed
that accused Parveen set the ATM on fire. PW-2 Sandeep Dimri
is Service Engineer, who identified CPU and hard disc of ATM.
During course of cross-examination, he admitted that the wires
VANITA
2026.11.13 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-435-2019 (O&M) 6
can be burnt due to short circuit or sparking in the batteries or
otherwise CPU, DVR, UPC can be burnt.
Prosecution produced no other link or circumstantial evidence to
connect the involvement of accused Parveen with the offence
punishable under section 436 of Indian Penal Code. There is
absolutely no evidence to infer the involvement of accused
Parveen.
23. Thus, in view of the settled proposition of law, as also after
analyzing the entire facts, both oral as well as documentary,
evidence adduced on the case file, the Court is of the opinion
that the prosecution failed to connect the accused with the
offences with which he was charged, beyond reasonable doubt,
the benefit of which in accordance with well established
principles of criminal jurisprudence is extended to the accused,
who is accordingly acquitted of the charges levelled against him
and is set at liberty, if not required in any other case. His bail
bonds and surety bonds shall remain in force till expiry of time
from filing appeal. Case property be disposed of as per rules.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”
8. A perusal of the aforesaid findings reveals that learned trial Court
after appreciating the evidence and material available on record acquitted
respondent with the observations that the prosecution has not been able to prove
its case against the accused. This Court finds that as per the impugned judgment
dated 08.05.2017, the prosecution failed to record or track the serial numbers or
denominations of the currency notes allegedly stolen from the ATM.
Furthermore, the recovery of the CPU and hard disc was rendered meaningless
because neither the service engineer nor the bank could provide the specific
serial numbers of the hardware installed at the PNB Kaithal ATM, making
identification impossible. Other recovered consumer goods (ACs, jewellery)
were proven to be legitimate purchases made by the accused's parents using
debit cards years prior to the offence. Learned trial Court has observed that to
sustain a conviction for criminal breach of trust or cheating, proof of entrustment
and dishonest inducement are mandatory prerequisites. The prosecution failed to
present a single iota of evidence showing that bank officials were induced by the
VANITA
2026.11.13 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-435-2019 (O&M) 7
accused, or that any property was legally entrusted to him.
9. The learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence and material
available on record did find enough and considerable dents in the prosecution
story qua respondent accused. The prosecution has not been able to effectively
discredit this version during the course of trial. Having examined the entire oral
and documentary evidence available on record, we are of the considered view
that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court do not suffer from any
perversity or illegality warranting interference. The view taken by learned trial
Court is a plausible one based on the evidence on record, and respondent has
rightly been acquitted as the prosecution has not been able to prove its case.
10. In an appeal filed against an acquittal, the appellate court must
examine whether the findings of the Court are perverse and prima facie illegal.
Once the appellate Court finds that the grounds on which the judgment is based
are not depraved, the scope of the appeal filed against acquittal is limited,
considering that the trial court's finding further strengthens the legal presumption
of the accused's innocence. At this point, it is imperative to consider the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrinal Das v. State of Tripura
(2011) 9 SCC 479 , wherein it has been observed as follows:
“8. It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of
perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court
exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However,
if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, it being the final Court
of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review
the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, the law does
not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of
such power and the appellate Court is free to arrive at its own
conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption
in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available
to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is
presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent
Court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the
VANITA
2026.11.13 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-435-2019 (O&M) 8
evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the
findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the
appellate Court to review the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate
Court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial court
with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal
against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the
appellate Court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only
by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of
acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when
there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the
order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for
interference.......”
11. Similarly, in the case of Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2008) 10 SCC 450 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the same view and the
relevant extract of the said judgment reads as follows:
“78. On careful analysis of the entire evidence on record, we are
of the view that the reasons given by the High Court for reversing
the judgment of acquittal is unsustainable and contrary to settled
principles of law. The trial court has the advantage of watching the
demeanour of the witnesses who have given evidence, therefore, the
appellate court should be slow to interfere with the decisions of the
trial court. An acquittal by the trial court should not be interfered
with unless it is totally perverse or wholly unsustainable”.
12. Thus, the judgment of acquittal is to be interfered with only for
compelling and substantial reasons. In case the impugned judgment is clearly
unreasonable, it would be a compelling reason for interference but where there is
no perversity in the finding of the impugned judgment as regards acquittal of the
accused, the appellate Court must not take a different view only because another
view is possible. This is because the trial Court has the privilege of seeing the
demeanour of witnesses and, therefore, its decision must not be upset in the
absence of strong and/or compelling grounds.
13. Consequently, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment dated 08.05.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
VANITA
2026.11.13 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-AD-435-2019 (O&M) 9
Kaithal, vide which respondent has been acquitted and the same is hereby
upheld. The present appeal as such is dismissed.
14. The pending miscellaneous application, if any, is also disposed of
as such.
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA) (RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
JUDGE JUDGE

05.11.2026
vanita
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
VANITA
2026.11.13 14:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document