CRIM ~J‘ AWELLMIT AP'l—rELLAN '1‘ RESPGf‘iDEiv‘T T11 Bh ' m mm, Aiz‘ c F Hm ‘2 1 3th B11} VERE Thg . _St'a Jax i 4-- 1 £42607 Sln‘i amm‘flant Trilok Singh. Shri Vivek‘ Shanna, Cou Chunnu. -J@1 wiLh RxK: ‘7 Criminal Appeal NOL 394 311d L’nmmal Appaal No. alias Lnunnu ale bemg CuspV iA Mi$KRA J. D 'TTw abo 11—f Di: § a. /2006 at the instance of Tmox Sing]; 09/ EAL No. 394(2006 )K bulgh b/o Mukhtvar S'lqh aged At 93 veeus, Rio Sector 7 “tr No k bacmk - is Bmlamag g‘CG) Stat: of Chllattiégm‘ll; through RS. amagar, Digtt. Dmjg (CG) zoéé b ’511 humar aims Lhunnu aged aout was, /o Nandu Ram, R/o Qector >6t No Avenue x, Block No 15 A 1a1 Nagar, D1stt. Burg (Cw) I U ' STate of. Chhaftisgarh, .tllmugh the xion Housev Otiicer, Police $tation ggir, Distt. Janjgir, .Champa (CG) ‘ Advocata$ for Hui Somkallt Velma, insei for appeliant Hitesii Kumar alias Govt. Advaca’te, for ih€ State. 1 Sandeep Yadav’ DY 006 at the instance of Hitesh Kumar 1sed of by this commonvjudgmem és SE: iiOl—WELE SHE? DPiiREiWf)? mm; Au . . W m ........................................'.’.,:............ wi‘aoo am um (W) ‘ mmm mwifwm %mm both thcse appeais are direcu and order of sentence dated 170/2003 whereby Earned SE5 under Sections 392 and 398 undergo RI, for 5 wars witl' payment of fm'e, to undergo R. 7 years with fme of Rs. 5601\- umiergc RI. 3 months réSpQ .,c‘1irccted to run concurrentlv. 3. As per the First Infoma‘ brief, is that on 2—11~200'2 cq of Sm‘aj Auto Traders was on Rs. 42,500] —, one driving iice of the. office in a plastie‘bag Luna of his son when the ap ffnhy language near Sector down. Thev were on scooter. snatching the plastic bag fr complainant tried to prevent ‘eountrv made revolver at him Ks. 42,1)UU/ , duvmg hcenee towaids L1V1c Lentre on scoo )6130115 that th€V W€T€ €m he plastic baa was 0t s ,ort st :d againsi the judgment of c011'viction ‘28‘1‘ A1911], 2006 passed 1'11 5331‘. No. Fsions Judgm Durg has convicted them cf I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to: fme of Rs. SOO/— a11d in defaultof i. for 3 months and to undergo RI. for and in default of payment of fme, to étively. A11 the sentences have been ‘ion Report case of the prosecution, in nplainant Kl. Bhaskaran, Accountant duty at about 8.45 p.m. and he kept , registtation book of Luna, key n'ng d was proceeding to his home in the )ellants stopped him, abused him by Market as a result of which he fell e pillion rider of the scooter started the handle of the Luna]When one rim from taking the bag he pointed and looted the plastic bag containing and regtstrauon book and ran away He gave description of the accused 2:) s0 sears, tne one who snatched tuie whereas the othe1 was tall The angina H an“ ) 1 l ‘ ‘h o. t r ‘3 € t e 1 3a W, m,W I W m..............f............;........._..,........,m..:..‘i 200 mm (W) WW WW ' $Wm ‘ $43011; was lodged in the‘‘poiilce s1 THE same day. I ‘ Dum‘ng investigation, the z 003. On th€ basis of mamorand" LOOCV - in the currencynotes 0' x. P—6. Simi‘lafly on thc basis of P5, Rs. l4,DOO/'— Was seized fro] [P."W. 1) Shlikant Velma Conduc‘ District Jail on 3-7—2003 wh correctly identified the accused p of Ex. P—l and I'P-‘2. 4i Afler compieting investigai Court of Judiciai Magistrate l'\.. .P U). ion, charge sheet was filed in the prosecution examined § Witnesses in ail and thereafter statements of the accused persons were recorck appealing against them in tl' innocence, Appellant Hitash alsc was, in fact, recovered by the pol he has been falseiy inlplicate innocence and faise imph'cation. Kumar Dix'it, D.W. ‘2 Praslianti and DW. 4 Jaswant Singh in their defence. Prion Bhilai Nagar at 22.45 his on 1ppellants were arrested on 25-6- 1111 of EX. P-4 of Hitesh Kumar; Rs. T 100 denomination was seized Vide memorandum of Triiok Singhof Ex. rn him Vide Ex P-7. Nail) Talisildar ed test identification parade in the ere couiplainant {Kl Bhaskaran' trsons vide test identification memo First Class, Dtirg.‘ During trial, ‘d in which they denied the evidence e prosecution case and pleaded stated that a sum of Rs. ll,OCO/— .ce from his father under duress and d. Appellant Trilok also pleaded Tliey also examined D.W. l ’Rakesh Somvanshi, D.W. 3'Nandu Rainteke FS/S9—— 8/1007 —30.000. ’ I I?» ' V W'- m mm.............. gi 200 mmwmau) parties, convicted and sentenced’the appellants para l ofthis judgment. 6. manned counSel for 1.1m U16 appellants. is based on Bhaskaran who allegec‘ily idem \ identiiication parade conductei \ memo of EX. P—l and P—2 311d peluSai of the statgment of the ths test identiflcation parade W his examinatiomin-chief‘ mat stauon and thereafter in the te WWdfsz'tW %iai1%m'a1%¥l 5. The trial Court after heating learned counsel for the respective as mentioned in appellants submits that conviction of the statement of complainant kl ified the accused persons in the test Ron 3rd Julv, 2003, the Statement of 3W. l Shrikant Verma who conducted test identification parade vide also on tlle"g1‘01111d that complainant KI. Bhaskaran correctly identiled the accused persons during tiial. Conviction is aiso based on the recoverv of looted cunencv note on the memorandum of accused persons which have been proved by the Investigating Qfficer Sunil David (P.W.8). It was argued that from complainant, it would be evident that as conducted on 3-7—2003 ie. almost after nine months of the incident. The complainant has admitted in even before conducting the te" . identification parade, the appelants were shown to him by the police in the 'poiice station and there ‘ter he identified the appellants in the District Jail as the persons W 'o were involved in the robbery. The dock identification of the accus d person's after mom than one year of , the incident looses significance in View of the fact that the appellants were shown to the complain 1t by the police firstly in the police t identification parade. lt was further . . ‘ d . mm,m,mrag( ’ m m .............».... .......;...u1 200 W?“ (W) WW wm 1V mimm: ma§ém I have heard learned co el for the parties. i haVe perused The record of the. trial Court as also theimpugned judgment. As aheady argued by CO1 nsel for the. appellants, the C0:_F,cti0n is based on the deposition. of complainant KI. Bhaskaran and the investigating Offlcer. .F‘rom perusal of the statement of the COHl‘plalllant, 11 1S ClEal“ Ill T116 t€St lClCDUflcaUOE Dal‘ad6 ‘Vai" conducted on 3—7-2003 after i11e months of the incident and 10 days after arrest of the ac used persons, He has categorically deposed in para 4 of his exal matronlin—chief that even before test identjflcation parade was co 1ducted,' the accused persons were shown in Sector 3 Police n by the police and accordingly he. identihed them in jail. ln vew of the above evidence, the test identiflcation looses its impo ce and no weightage could be given to the identiflcation‘of the3ap ellants in the said test identiflcation palade. b0 tar as Dock me tmcatlon 1s concerned taklng mto consxleranon that the Wltness h l Bhaskalan was exammed on l’hJ Januaw, 9004 wheleas the 1n 1dent occuned on 211d NovemL 20 J’) e mom than one year attel the moment and further consulernlg hat tins W1tness was shown 0 the appellants 1n the pohce stauon as also m the test 1denuncat on parade, the dock 1dentn1cat10n bv thls wnness cannot be made t e sole basls 101 then‘ conv1ctlon 50 Iar as recovew oi Rs ll OUO/ - n n1 appellant Hltesh and Rs. 14 OUU/- Irom appellant Tnlok bmgh n the bams of then" memorandums 1s concerned the onlv w1tness 01 memorandum and se1zu1e Ram Yadav u s a 1 S . ‘o 1 1 1 t w l ”M w”. n‘.tu&~nmm,v as not suppmfmd like cage admitted his signature on the denisd that thé amount was given by the accused persons, specific mark or identity in the bundles of note, the conviction cannot be based on the basie of the ccused persons when the rec a incident. In the resuit, both the succeed. Their conviction und sentences imposed under th acquitted 01 an tne Charges. Y6qull‘6d 111 ally Otllél‘ caSE. of the prosecution and he has only memorandum and seizure but he has seized on the basis of the information Even otherwise, in the absence of any aileged recoveiy on the memo of the )vely is made after nine months of the appeals preferred by the appellants er Sections 392 and 398 of LP’C. and 33E. sections are set aside They are They be 'set at liberty forthwith if not sw- r! DHIRENDRA MISHRAj Judge _ 1i am gamm, (metre —FS/s9— 8/2007 —3o,ooo‘ i ,a h . . “v