x x1;Hc+s 7 WWW 394Tmm RESPONDENT Pres'ent: None for the appefllant. ’ Slyi Neeraj Mehta nhinnndrg Mighrn .I In compliance of t issued to the appellant before the Court on 6th l of the service report of Durg, it appears that t given address. Prem Singh, s/o Gulab Singh Rajput; aged 55 years, R/o Katul Board, Near Hanuman Mandir, P.S. Mohan Nagar, Durg, M.P. VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh Through Police Station G'.R.P. Raipur, M.P. P.L. for the State/respondent. JUDGMENT (13.08.2007) he order dated 25.6.2007 notice was from Court side for his appearanc Xugust 2007. However, from perusal Town Inspector, RS. Mohan Nagar, he appellant does not reside in the HIGH COURT OF bHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1993 OF 1996 APPELLANT e XI~H€—78 WW, @WW Q, W Wm ta 200 mummy! m‘m (W) WWWIWW ~ *Wm The Additional Puk has submitted a writter received from the Centra released on 14.5.1997 afw ,' Thus, from the cor since he has been releas sentence, he is not intere [duct of the appellant it appears that ed from jail after completing the jail sted in prosecuting this appeal. Taking into consid not residing in the given : appellant has been rele sentence imposed on h nce of the appellant on the basis of evidence available on rec lic Prosecutor appearing for the State l communication that as per report 1- Jail, Raipur the appellant has been :er getting special remission. eration the fact that the appellant is iddress and also considering that the ased from jail after undergoing the on special remission, this appeal is being decided in the abs Appellant Prem Sections 328 andl379 o R.I. for 2 1/2 years under Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 11 respectively with default Allegation again complainant Sheikh Abd rd. ngh has been convicted under the IPC and sentenced to undergo ach section. He has also been fined 000/— under Sections 328 8r, 379 tipulation. the present appellant is that llah Bari lodged a written report 0n i s i XI-H€—78 WW,W,W W m ...............................;.........................wt 200 ‘ 3“?“ W (W) m§$ —mmm g‘ ““2?”$§§“W 11.1.1993 to the effect that on 7.1.1993 while he was‘ traveling by train, co-pa:;senger offered him tea at Raipur, as a result‘bf which he became unconscious and regained consciousness only on the next day at Bilaspur. His luggage /. and leash Were stolen. On the basis of above report the offence was registered and investigation was conducted. 'The accused persons who were arrested in connection with some other offence pending ‘n Gondiya Court were put to test identification and the complainant correctly identitied them. After committal learned [II Additional Sessions Judgek Raipur framed charge under Sec tions 328 and 379 of the IPC., During trial the prosecution examined six witnesses. " Thereafter, statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C_. in which he denied’the material appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence anc false implication. After hearing counsel for the respective parties, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned inparagraph 1 of this judgment. However, accused Ramesh was acquitted of the chagges by extending benefit of doubt. XI-H€—78 WW, m, W Wm mama-a (W) 32. wt 200 mmm 4, mwiwm éwifémalém Conviction of the z the complainant Sheikl’ identifled the appellant Raipur station, as a res recovery of stolen article has also been proved by Court relying upon the convicted and sentenc judgment. There is no : judgment which calls for V In the result, the appeal being devoid of substance is . liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismi&d.,f ‘\ a t 1ppellant is based on the statement of . Abdullah Bari (PW—1) who correctly as the person who offered him tea at ult of which he fell unconscious. The s on the memorandum of the accused this witness. Thus, the learned trial statement of the complainant, has :d the appellant by the impugned llegality or infirmity in the impugned interference by this Court. x W Sd/- F Dhirendra Mishra' Judge “‘7‘