! x V “\\\\;\F;§L‘L\w:|mwu“ ‘; ‘ ‘ Ng:W N THE HIGH COURT-OF MADEY£1PRADESH AT JABALPUR Original Appeal No. WK of 1996. / Aj l , .S. Seg, M labourer, resident of Nana §éra P imag‘ Bihar. / ¢£ma1v it Lakda son of Sa /, , aged about 26 years x \At‘yresent. in Raigarh Jai. A PPEL'LA NT VERSUS / / , fhe:State of M.P\. in APPEAL UNDER SECTIONu314 OF CR.E.O. I RESPONDENT ’~“ a l I [ / , 1 l /, . n M. ti r waker iinal pea o. o 9 APPELLANT ji a At Lakd. RESPONDENT St o Madya Pradesh. ate f h a cou aean St ‘ .08.010) is a drte ist the de n orer 0 01 6 ss b iil Se dge Sewns Ta N 219 convtctln e ccuseappellant under ss nl o 4/194 g th ad/ Section 395 01 IPC an sencmg hm t de rigorous Imrisonment d ten i o unrgo p o nd a f R n flt o n . furt drgo pl t or o ' ief ft ofte cse e th n 2299 at . r V w W (E- Io y M Khi (PW—3) llgi th he is a i ‘ ru ari ristratn N. WBO3—481 and o a da w _ riin ruck om ada, Orlssa o Rnchi, near afari r-3 unknow pn e his truck, out tm on as rr m pitol f rs r c ttin nd one was ing club lt is eged th the accus peros ave first demande m the mpnat and hter hey looted way R. 320 HMT w lt is ao ge a thereafter all es prson had frtr omittd coity in 4- o . rt lleged at connectin th sme th , accu/apellant a rested by te police o a of ih and ur ei reveale t h has commitd th resen cri ‘ based was cc e reen a along ne -- -2. Br acs h a ar at o .05.13 about 610 a.m. FIR XP7) was dged b d. asm 1 aeng at drver of a tck beng egio o 5 n tht y hen he was dvg his t fr Talm t a Sarjhya bidge six n ersos stoppd of he e w caying a country ade s, our peons wee arrying sharp cug weapons a carry . all at ed sn h d money fro colain tereaf t a , s ,0 and one wrist atch. ls alled tht :the? es uhe cme da 5 ther trucks lt is fuher a th in o wi o oer case the sedp ws ar h f Stte Bar ding nqury it d hat e te e pt me also and on that he madeaused in th pst cse with o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Ho. r Jusce Pitinker Di) Crm Apl N 402 f 196 VERSUS ShnA K Prsad nsel forppnt Shn Vlvek Sharma PL for respondent/tae CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE J U D G M E NT (022 Th appel is iecd agan jugmnt ad d dated 3 199 paed y Addtona ssmns Ju Jashpur Nagar In fr five years a py fme o s 2000 I deau f paymet of fine to her une s:me Imprisonmen f ne year I I I I I I I r i _ -2— Parmanand and offence under sections 395 IPC and 25 & 27 of Arms Act ' was registered against them " 1' 3. After Investigation the challan was flled on 08 O8 1994 against thJ I“ present appellant and the acquitted accused Parmanand and chargesi were framed against them under sections 395 of IPC and 25 & 27 of Arme Act. Vt i ‘ 4. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined L A 13 witnesses in support of its case Statements of the accused persons. A were also recorded under section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure In I which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their M Innocence and false Implication m the case wL \ i 6.‘ Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on > ’ record Including the Judgment Impugned 7. Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that present is a case 5. By the impugned Judgment the co accused Parmanand has been, acquitted of all the offences whereas the present appellant has been V ’ though acqUItted under sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act but has beenr 'conVicted under section 395 IPC as mentioned above Hence the present appeal where none of the prosecution Witnesses except government offiCials havJ 'j j ‘ supported the prosecution case He submits that Witnesses to the Test. identification Parade memorandum and seizures have not supported the r prosecution case and have been declared hostile He further submits that even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is the appellant cannot be V' _ I conVIcted under section 395 of IPC 8. On the other hand supporting the impugned Judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that though the independent Witnesses have ‘ not supported the prosecution case but yet the Court below is fully Justified in conVicting the accused/appellant on the ba3is of the statements of th government offiCials 0 F a I e f3” 9. Madhusudan Ram (PW—1) and Rameswar Das (PW—4) are thé ' witnesses to the Test Identification Parade (EXP-4), have not supported j \ the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. Laxman Das (PW—; i ‘3) and Dilip Kumar Das (PW-5) are the witnesses of memorandum (Ex. P-: 1) and seizure (EXP-2) have also not supported the prosecution case and » have been deClared hostile. Shivchand Choudhary (PW—6) is the witness‘ of seizure and has als‘onot supported the prosecution case and has bee i declared hostile. Shivram (PW-7) — the Head Constable has recorded‘the" FIR (Ex.Pr7). Jaikrishna Nayak (PW-8) is a driver of the other vehicle who was also subjected to dacoity,‘has stated that his watch was looted by the accused persons and he had identified his watch in the police stationi i However, in cross—examination this witness has stated that his watch Was V kept in the police station on a table and the police officials told him that thej said watch belonged to him. L. K. Sai (PW—10) — District Magistrate has identified the signature of the Collector vide Ex. P-8. R. A. Chhatra (PW-l I 11) — the Investigating Officer and V. Pradhan (PW—12) have done part of. the investigation. Md. Kashim Husain ((PW—13) — the lodger of the FIR has stated that the report was lodged by him and has narrated the incident asT, to in what manner the watch and the amount was taken from him. Furtherl he has stated that the persons, who had taken money from him, could not be identified by him at the time ofthe incident. 10. Minute examination of the evidence of the witnesses makes it clear that there is no cogent, legal admissible evidence against the appellant on , ' ‘ which basis he can be convicted under section 395 IPC. The witnesses to ' t the Test Identification Parade, memorandum of the accused and seizure 1 ‘ have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile ' and merely on the basis of the statements of the Executive Magistrate and Vi the investigating Officer, the accused/appellant cannot be convicted. 11. Appeal, as a result, is allowed and the judgment impugned is seti aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is ' already on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. The fine amount if, l l Sd/- l; Pritinker Diwaker if l ll r K Judge V“ T deposited by the appellant be refunded to him. § /