t3 0 01‘ ') ‘ '1 bmh thEse appaais am Ch'rectd against the judgmant of cahviction 311d ordsr 0f S611t€11ce datéd 28th ADriL 2006 passed in SKY. No. 170/ 2003 whereby malned Scifslons Judge, Burg has C011V1Ct€a mall under S-Sciions 392 $161 398 ch" LRC. axm‘i santencttd each of than to undafgo RI. for 5 years with 13116 of Rs. SODI- and in defauit of paymem of fni‘e, to uncierga R! for '3 month$ and to unciérga RE. for ‘7 areaw with fmr: of Rs. SGxCk am‘i 1'11 defauit of paymétm of fms, to undergo RE. 3 months rssp Ctivol‘y‘. Allthc semonces have be&n \(ilIECt€a 10 11111 CDI‘lClllTEiTii‘y‘. :5. ’ As pot {he First informa i011 Repori caSe of E116 prosecu‘rion} i1) “aria", is mat on 2—11-ZUU2 co piainant hi Bhaskarajl, Accountant»: V_ of Surai Auto Traders was on dirty at about 8.45 p.111. and ho kept Rs. 42,50i3f -, one. :‘iriving Ecol o, registration book of Luna, key ring of tho offlce in a plastic bag was proceeding to his homo in tho Luna of his son Whon the a Hant$ stoppoc‘i him, abusod him by fiifhy 1anguag€ Hoar Soctor Market as a result of which he fei} down. They were on scooter. e piliion Iifier of the scooter startet‘l snatching The Mastic bag fr {he hanc‘iie of the Luna. When the. complainant trieci io prevent i111 from taking the. Bag, he pomted COlll‘lUf’y’ madE 1‘€VOIV€T at Elm SilCi IOOI€Cl U16 PiaSHC Dag CODEBJDHlg Rs. 42,5QOf—, {hiving iicenee and registration 1300K anti ran away : towards Civio Cenn‘e on Scoot .r. He gave deecn’pt‘ion of ihe accueed persons rhat thev were. he'm‘e n 25-30 years, the one who snatched the piasn'c hag vas of short Si furewheieas file other was tali. The ¢ é k d p e 1 '. h o a my» in EW,W,W Wm W 200 3mm (WW) r. mw,m,%mgt nm'EaTm ................................ ....................“i 200 mam-m (13W) x pariias, convicmd ami sentanwd th€ ammlian‘is as manionad in gara l offhis jucigm6nt. ‘r ‘ 6, Leanled counsml for tips €116 amaeiiantS. iS baged on Bhaskal‘an who aikgedi‘i Ebe flac‘i thg accu$eci persons in €11€ tam“ m6r§hi1ccmon gaaracifs conducte on m July, 2003 th€ StatemSnt 01 W i b‘ll‘lkalit VEHlla “410 CO CiuCL€d IESK ldEllmlLaUoll Dal‘ad6 VKIE :IDEJIO Oi EX F J. al'Ki I" alla 8150 011 L116 5101111€1 Ulat CODlDlalllallt hi jihaSKalal}. uOl‘IECUV 1Cl€11 ' 1€G H1€ aCCuS€ii D€ISODS (11111115 trial 'LODVlCIlOIl 1S E1150 DEIS€Q 011 1ECOV€TY GI IOOI€d C111T€DC§7 110i€ .011 €116: memoram‘ium of accused p $30115; which haw $36611 proved byiix’; 'hNestigating Officer Sum} Da id (RVs/'3} ii WaS argued that from pelfuea‘i of the statement of the complainant, it Wouki be evident that the. test. identification parade conc‘iuctec‘i on '3- appel‘iants submits that convicu'on of fha Statement of compiaiuant hi n i it? 7—‘2005’ ie. aimost after nine months of the incid nt. The complainant. hae admitted in his examination-in—Chief that even before conducting the test idenuncanon t . ‘ . ~ . . paiaoe, . the . app q. ts were shown a to V nun . . a by I the .‘ ponce A. in the ‘poiice station and there "ter he. identified the appellants in the District Jail as the persons w ’0 were involved in the robbery. The dock identification of the accus d persons after more than one year of the incident looses significance in View of the fact that the appellants 1Y€l€ SHOVVH IO T116 COlIlDIEJD 1T UV T116 pOilc€ HISLLV 111 LHE DQHCE station . V. and mereaner t 1n the t t . mentincation parade. it was Fh‘A further U t: s e u i e ‘ llmwm m1Mm a“ m tm em mm Wm \ a; am 6m: ‘5. Th6 iriai Court after heaing counsei for the u. WW§Wmr éxwm argued lt‘hai {116 only Witness 3:161 Seizura of loctad mcmay L v‘ ha$ 110i support€d rim cas€ of tha prosmution ami has staiEd that 11E did Rat recognim fhf: accu$€d 1361‘30113 and when 1m Wém' to The séCond witness of not been gxanlhlgd. However I'he tn’a} Court, relying ’upon the statement of the investigating Offxcer, who Vrgcorded memorandum and dy of ’the appeilallts on the basie of their memorant‘ium statement“. There was no idenfiflcafion mark as the investigating Offlcer has; admitted in hie awe—examination tha‘t 11o siip of Suraj Auto Traders Was; affixed in the bundiee of note aod fimrefom, racovery of caSh an connxect The app€iizmtS with amwilant No. i that T116 1110116 uniim‘ Chifsss may b6 probabii: '7‘ v On the other hahc‘i, leanxec‘i couhee} for the State has supportec‘l the impugneii judgmeni alld argueei that there was 11o reason for {he complainant to faiseiy iciemji‘v the appei‘lahts as the persons who ccnlmiti¢é robbery £11161 the comiictgd the acctxwd pgmons Raju Y&dav (PW. 5) of nmmorandum } ‘ the poiicg staiion, €116 1301106 obtamac‘i Crow-exmhmd by i116 praismution. mewremdum £1161 seirare has amount was seizec‘i from custc affected seizure, has held that the ouui 011 their memorandum calmot the offence anti the defehce of the ‘V waS in fast ohmhled from his faiher )ECL :‘efore, the Court below lias. rightiy on the basis of dock itientjfication. i 3 “ag :E' WW trauma ~FS/59— 3/2007 .3070” of if his‘signam'te on biank panels. He has been (ieclareti hostiie and \ V .\ WW (W) WWW WW %€I aw‘rmm has not s‘uppormu me casv: aimitted’ hi5; signatm‘t‘ on U16 éenimi thai the amomnrwas W given by the accuSEd persons. g +3 specifm mark or idsntity 111 the be ‘baseil 011 the basis of Tim » accused-pawns Wham U16 mc 3 mcmsnt. w > , . 1C). in the resuit, both the succtaed. Thoir conviction 11nd ssntences impossd under tn ‘ acquitted ‘01” an H16 emerges. required in any other case. nof the proeecution anti ne Has only memorandum and seizure but he. nae seized on the basis o: the miomiation Even otheiwise, in the absence of anV bundles of note, the conviction cannot ailegec‘i recovery- on the memo of the wery is made after nine months 01 the appeals preferrefi by the appeilants er Sections 892 and 398 of LPG. anti )se sections are set asme. 'l‘nev are Thev be. set at liberty forthwit _ not Sdl- ‘ Dhirendra Mishra Judge l i i aim aim: gamma, We're ~FS/s9— 8/2007 —3o.000. ’ ’ W l