^J- K fllll l:t I fwma ll.li IN THE HIGH COU&T OE MAUIYA PBADESH AT JABAU'UB'.jp '^j IN, CRIfiINAL APPEAL N0. 7 1991 l'^^^"^ ^••^NP':ui. l.; ;"*ii^^.^ APP6UANTS s- l. paraanand Sahu S/o Shri Dasaroo (Accused^ersoRS) Sahu aged 28 yeax's,,.resident ef Dabarapara Bagbahara, District Batpur^ (M.P.). 2. 6wal sen of SambhirSahu aged abouf 25 years reslderat of Dabarapara Bafibahara, Oistt* Ilaipur, (M.P.). BESK3NBEMT s- V E B S U S The State of Madhya Pradesh •threush Pelice Statien Bagba&ara Distt. fiaipur, it.P. APPEAJ. 13NEEB SEGTICti 374 OF CamWAi. PBOCEOURE GODE ^973--—~T~~ ~ -- 'r • IS'^kBT*" L. versus Pariaanand Sabu Ss Aaother State of Madhva Pradcsh Shri. H.B.Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parucaj Agrawal, counsel for the appeltents. Shri Vivek Sharma, P.L. for the State. APPEAL UNDEX SBCTION 374(2) OF THE CR.P.C. (OS.03.2010) Ttus appeal is directed agaiust fhe judgment dated i 30.07.91 passed by ftie Additional Sessioiis Judge,i Mahasam.und in Session TriaE No. 199/89 conncttag fhe appeUauts for the offences p-iiiiishable iinder Sections 394 & 450 oftaeIPC aiid sentenciag fh.eiu to unctei^o RI for tliree years. 2. As per fhe case of the prosecutionon 19.2.89, FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged by fhe complaiaant Anii Kaliya (P.W.-l) aUeguig ia it that he is the proprietor of Raj Maadir Video Hall and OE the saine day at abo.ut 10.00 p.in. when he was sitting iii fhe office near the bookiug counter of fb.e Video hafl, fhe appeuaat No. 1 Pai-maaaud cntered fh.e boofcmg counter carryiag rod in his haad and had asked the booldnt clerk Lala Raia to handover fhe entire amount to him.. He has furfher afleged fhat when he tried to inteni'ene ia tlie matter the appeUaat No.l assaulted tiim with the help of rod. It has been ftirfh.e.r inentioned ia ttie FIR fhat at fhe time of the cominission. of the offence apoellaat No. 1 was shoutuig by sayio.g fhat fhere are so many persons along with him and if fhe entire aniount wouM not be given to IUIBI fhere would be blood shed and some body would ibi Inurdered aad fhcreafter he took'Rs. 1000 fi-oai ffie casN box aud fhen had also suatahed fh.e wrist watch of the coitiplainaat. It is also aUeged that fhe appeBaut No.2 had accom.paaied the appeUatit No.l when t!ie offeace ofrobbeiy was comuuutted. 3. In support ofits case, the prosecution has exainiued as m.any as 15 witnesses. Statem.eat of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of fhe Cr.P.C. iii which tliey denied the atlegations leveHed against fhein aiid pleaded their ianocence and false miplication io. ttiecase. This apart, one defence witness has also been examiaed by tfieia ia support of their case. 4. Afier hearing counsel for fhe parties, fhe trial Court Iias convicted and sentenced fhe appeUaats as inentioned a.bove. Hence fhis appeal. 5. Contention of the couiisel for fhe appeliaats is ttiat ttiere are material conferadictions in the statement of Anil KaMya (P.W.-l). He subniits fhiat ia fb.e Coiirt this witness has given entirely a aew stoiy whereas fhe same was not there either in fhe FIR or iu his ca.se diaiy statem.ent. It lias also been argued that (b.e other witaess namely Lala Ram. (P.W.-8), Mahant (P.W.-10) have not supported the prosecution case though they were shown as eye witaessgs. It has also been argued fhat fhe seizure witaess aairiely Shabbir (P.W.-12) aad Lala Ram (P.W.-8) have ^ not supported the seizure. It has beea fiuther argiied that ftie alleged seizure of the watch caanot be accepted in. tlie eye of law because fhe wateh was found, iu the open place and was handed over to the niofher ofthe appeHaat No. 1. It has been argued on behalf of the appeUant No.2 fhat no | role whatsoever has been attributed to him. and as he has not taken active part ia the uicident he deserves tb be acquitfed. 6. On fhe other hand supporting fhe judgtapnt im.pugneditb.as been ar^ued by tbe State counsel fha}; |Aie inipugned judginent is stricfty ia accordaBce witli law| ininor conteadictions ia fhe statemenf ofP.W.-l A.afl Kl iva !:jl! does aot inake aay difference in the case. He has furffaer argued tliat a veiy prom.pt report has been lodged by Anil Kaliya (P.W.-l) and titiat itself shows tjiat there is no exaggeration ia the prosecutiou case. It has also been sa-gaed tliat both AaU Kaliya (P.W.-l) aad Mafaaat (P.W.-10) Iiad suffered iajuries and this fact has been confirmed b}' fheir medical report Ex.P/9 & P/10 aad the statement of the doctor C.S.Mishra (P.W.-4). 7. I have heard coiuisel for the pardes and perused fhe record. Froin fhe stateiD.ent of Aiiil Kaliya (P.W.-l) it is clear that on 19.2.89 when he was sittine in the office ofhis video halt at about 10.15 p.ni. accused/appeBaat N0.1 entered fhe booking counter along with appellant No.2 canyia.g au iron rod aud had asked the clerk of the bookinK counter namely Lalaram to handover the entire cash to him. Tbis witaess has farther stated that appeBant No. 1 has also siven. threat to the clerk that tftfae entire amount is nof handed over to him he would be kiUed.It is also stated that when Lalarain asked hirn as to why he has couie fhcre be repUed by saying that eariier also ia fhe said video hall one| niurder was conimitted aad if the amount is not given to| him, aaother niurder would take place aad thereafter tbfi| appeUant No.l gave a blow wifh fhe rod on tbe cash box t>y| saying fhat he is not akirie and ottier persons are also with| hitn aiul then he called the appeUaat No.2. It is also aUcgedi that fh.ereafter the appeUairt took theeiitire inoney fiom thej cash box which was about Rs. 1200 aad then assautted fhei conrplainaut with the saul iron rod as a result ofwhich he| sustaixied injuiy on his neck and haud. It is also atleged1 that thereafter the appellant np. 1 snatebed the wrist watch | ( ofthe coiaplainant and gave liiin threat not to approach fhe i / poHce. . I;. lu fhe cross examiaation this witness was very firia aad nothiag substaatial has been stated by him whicb may help fhe appeBants. Tbough soaie iniuor contradictions are there iu the statement ofthis witness but fhe saine wfll nojt; afiect fhe truthfuluess' oflt&e stateinent 6f this witness iti /-^ e~ ^y particular ifthe sarae is coiupared wifh fhe FIR and his case diaiy statement Ex.D/1. 8. On tlie basis of nieinoraiiduni of appeBant No.l one iron rod vide Ex.P/14 was seized aud the seizure nieino is Ex.P/15. The said iron rod was duly identified by fhe rnmp1ninHnt Anil Kaliya (P.W.-1) ia the Court. Further a wrist watcb ofArul KaSiya (P.W.-l) was recovei'ed froai the house ofthe accused/appeBaut No.l vide Ex.P/17 aiid the same was duly identified by Aiul Kaliya vide Ex.P/6. Though seizure witoess Suiul Kuniar (P.W.-21 has stated thatbefbre signing the document lie has not read the sanie but he adinits fhat he had signed the seizure nienio vide Ex.P/6, P/7 & P/8. 9. Rathnial (P.W.-3) is the labourer who had found tlie wateh ia the house of appellant No. 1 and had haaded over the saine to the inotber of fhe appeUant No. 1 and ultimate^ fhe said wateh was recoveied. This witaess has supported fhe case of the prosecution. 9. Dr. G. S. Mishra (P.W.-4) who had exaiamed ttie uyured Anil KaUya and Mahaat and had given his medic&t reportYide|Ex.P/9& P/10,faas categoricaUy stated that iie, had foulid Mijuries on the neckand faiger ofthe right hand ofAml KetUya and had also fouiid iajury on fhe little fingei} of right hand of Mahaat (P.W.-10). This witriess has corroborated fhe stateiiient of coiaplainaut Auil Kaliya.] Mohaulal {P.W.-5) workerofthevideo haUand BaUa (P.W.-^ have not supported the proseeution case aad have turD.ejd] hostile. Lalaram (P.W.-8), Babulal (P.W.-6), Mahaat (P.W.-j 10) and Jogendra Siagli (P.^/.-9l fhe iitvestigation officet) have supported. the prosecution case. Bhushaji Lal Sah|u; (P.W.-ll) is the Patwari wlio had prepared the spot aiap haa supported the case. Sabfcir (PW.-12) has parOy siippoi-t^d| ftie Tirosecution case. The defeace witaess D.W.; Bai inof&eij of appeUaut N6.1 lias aenied |the seizure i>f:t3i^ watch. •|+"rt'! -i ;ea^a \''y 10. After goiag through the entire evidence as adduced by the prosecution fhis Court is of the opmion that fhe finding as given by the Court below is strictly ia accordaace wifh law and fhere is no iufirmity ia the same. Tbe statement of AnU KaMya (P.W.-l) is fuUy reUable aad iaspire fhe confidence of fhis Court. More so when the statement of fhis witaess has been duly supported by fhe doctor C.S.Mishra who had examined Aiul KaMya (P.W.-l) aad Mahaat (P.W.-IO) aad had found iajuries. II. Accordingly, the appeal beiiig without force is liable to be disiuissed and it is dismissed as such. Judgment iinpugned convicting aad sentencing ihe accused/appellants is hereby inaintamed. AppeUaats are reported to be on baU. TheirbaU bonds staad caaGeIfcd. They be sent to jaU immediately to serve out the remaiiiuig part offhe sentence. ,__ '.— Sd/- PMTINKER DIWAKER Judge ^ ii' <:-