3:5ET"MI<l|l<rt<<, ®TTl+f'l<o,Rl^l^y ^IIMrtl sb*11<b •^ 200 3n^?T TfR; ( 4cl[-l«<<W) sii^r.^rlci-ii* OTT31KW **<l<ti TOiTWtlfOT 3I1^T CRiminal ApDea [Sinqle Bench; Hon'ble Mr. Uustice Dhirendra Mishra] APPELLANT Vs RESPONDENT Krishna ^ Mahant, r^siden' Chowki- Kharsiy< (Chhatt State o the Pol Distt. Ji 1.10.2007 Shri R.K. Jaiswal, Counsel Shri Arun Sao, 6.A. for the r| This appeal is directed agwr\ brder of sentence dated 19.10 |slo.319/04, whereby the learned A^ :onvicted the appellant under Sect| )f the IPC and sentenced him to :ine of Rs.500/-, in default of R.I. for one month. The case of the prosecuti^i )etween 19:15 to 20:15 hrs, the ap| chi*<I<n4ii ^Wtil*'^ f^^ ^^K ^?3tfgii3ii^[ .No.1008 OF 2004 t)as, son of Firtu Das Aged about 21 years, of Khamhar, Police lobi, Police Station- Distt. Raigarh sgarh) Chhattisgarh, Through: ice Station- Baraduvar, injgir-Champa (C.G.) for|theappellant. r^spondent/State. )st the judgment of conviction and .2004 passed in Session Trjal Iditional Sessions Judge, Sakti has lons 394 read with Section 397/34 urjdergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a payjment of fine to undergo additional |n in brief is that on 9.5.2004 in >ellant along with other co-accused GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007— 50,000. .,<;'° <S'CT=t "^IIK'i^, »Tfly'IS,fs|<^l'y^< HIH^I *^|cb W^ 200 sn^r wv (Tpf^gqw) 31lt?T?iTl?:IW WISITOI WtOV TOIIWHi?^ 3)1^1. 2-. ^PtM^T-RTCff if fet^ tRl^R ^aifgiT 3)1^1 enjtered theshop of complainant Sar^deep Jain <& Sarijay Jain on the prjetext of purchasing ornaments. Wl^ile complainant Sandeep Jain was sbjowing ornaments to the appellant, 4t That time the appellant robbed 'l-~f. g<|ldenpolish necklace and to^s valijing Rs.2,000/- on the threat of \.J pi^tol and started running away. R|s associate was ready with the mjotorcycle in front of the shop an(l while they were attempting to |ee from the place of incident, tjhe complainant and Sanjay Jain jiased and caught them. The appellc|nt also assaulted the complainant ahdcaused him hurt. However, the| accused was nabbed and in this pl-ocess, the accused also sustairjed some injuries. However, his :complice Sohan managed to flee. fteport of the incident was lo|jged by complainant Sandeep Jain ijide Ex.P-l at 21.00 hrs on the sa|ne date. buring investigation the (ppellant was arrested on the sarjie day vide Ex.P-5. Motor cycle, (ecklace <& tops with golden polislji, air pistol etc. were taken into ^ossession vide Ex.P-6 from the pl^ce of incident. A knife was taken rto possession from the appellant |vide Ex.P-7. Complainant Sandeep Fain was sent for medical examii iaradwar, where Dr. P. Singh (P^ tiation to Primary Health Centre, N-7) examined him and gave his 'eport of Ex.P-9. Sanjay Jain (f^W-9) was also sent for medica! ixamination and his examination reiliort is Ex.P-11. "—^ - GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007 — 50.000. 18 i:?:SIB3 ;lfi83! ;iB9SI ;HBHI -EISSil ( it»!M«ll> t:it« -HC-22 an^i^r h-u* s^f ^-li'=b ylia 'S'sr •^WId^, riTlly'lii, fafii'yy sti^r xnra? ffmw g»*n«h "H^ 2»0 f^B^T' 3i]^r^<nwdfei -1>- After completing-investi^ating, the charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Magistrate, Sakti. During trial, t|ie prosecytion examined 12 witnesses ii. and thereafter, the staterten|t of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein false implication. He also exam defence. However, the trial cou^t after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties, convj mentioned hereinabove. Learned counsel for th4 Kedia (PW-4) with respect to th| The prosecution has shown that] the complainant says that he object, whereas, the doctor has the complainant was caused by the appellant is d toy pistol eM<lfet41l •Hl^^ff^ fs%l <f^l'(^l< ^7 sif:gir sii^i lcourt of Additional Chief Judicial |The appellarit pleaded innocence and |ned DP. [Smt.] Latlita Rajnala in his cted and sentenced the appellant, as appellant submits that there are material omissions in the stateJTient of the complainant and Sanjay : seizure of knife from the appellant. the seizure has been effected from the ppssession of appellant, w^ereas, these witnesses have stated that thesame was recovered fri|im the place of incident. There is also dis^repancy with regard to the i|njuries sustained by Sandeep Jain, as sustained injuries by hard <& blunt opined that the injuries sustained by he knife; Ths pistol recovered from and the investigating officer has categorically stated that the c^mplainant in his djary statement did _^fa^ B! :i"Sil i!!B!l yi;8( ssaaa^ ,jSii,. ^.HC-22 an^r'^i W Sf^l ?fflf<n ^riicf ^q "'ll-lllcl'1!, d-dl'y'l'", facfwy <<r«wrshHich 3(1^?T TR^? .(J?C.&...10';:?1?.^. •M 200 Iq^T' SD^T T'EgiWHlta -\- not mention that he was d <^l^<T<4lT1 TTTIRTf ^ f^%t <^1+^T< ^;3ifigi[<ffl^i ssaulted by the knife, In these circumstances, benefit, of doubl^ ought to have been extended to the appeltant. On the other hand, learndtl eounsel for the Statehas supported the impugned judgment. I have heard Jearned cou tt- nsel for the parties. I have perused the impugned judgment as also t|ie evidehce available on record. Complainant-Sandeep Jaii^ that he along with his brother ^ jewellery shop on the date dnd| came their shopon the prete^ remained there for an hour and (PW-1) in his deposition has stated pn.jay Jain (PW-9) was sitting in their tinie of incident when the appellant <t of purchasing the ornaments and in the meanwhileone of his associates was mpving here and there. All ^-f sudden the appellant picked up the opnaments, took putagun from |iis pocket and asked him; to handover theornaments, at that time his as,a result of which accused gdjt frightened and started running out from the shop, however, he wc| associate has also started thel there. He has further stated some hard object on hfs leff h(\ injury and blood started oozing] ^rother Sanjay attdcked theaccused, [S overpowered by his brother. His motor cycle and tried to flee from that the appellant assaulted him by ind as a result of which he sustained On hearing his sheyts, Ranu Shosh, <lRs^ BM ir~~^s ^m %i -HC-22 sii^r^r W* an^r sfrRi^i ^ifi^f ^sg "ill^M'4, ®til<H<ie,(<(di<4'i< Hiqc'tr th*<iqi 3ii^?r 'ci?ra? __<^A-..\.5o.|.|,°.^.. •^ 200 fq^ar' 311^1'S^IIWtlfel -t> Sunil Kalani and several ather pe and thereafter the report was lo Similar is the statemen' corroborated the statemeny of Their version is further corrobt Agarwal (PW-2), who reached incident and saw the accused incident. This witness has st| sustained injuries, their injuries| we.rs lying at the place of incidei Sanjay Kedia (PW-4) has appellant and seizure of artic|es| The discrepancies andom[ for theappellant in the stateiT) nature and the same does nc|- witnesses, who are the eye-witt sustainedinjuries and their inju| P.Singh, who has examined Sa|( corresportding injuries over thei Thus, from the evidence| |sQns rushed and caught theappellant 'tlged. of Sanjay Jain (PW-9), who has complainant in material particulars. jr.ttted from the statement of Sanjay |to the spot immediately after the |lying in the drain at the place of (ited that Sanjay & Sandeep had werebleeding and motor cycle <& gun eb]^ifl14ll f?H^f'^ 'f^St' 't.f^l^K ^aipOTSD^i t. iroved the seizure of knife from the lying on the place of incident. ssions pointed put by leqrned counsel ent of these witnesses are trivial in impedch the credibility of above issses of the incident and who have 'ies have also been established by Dr. ijay Jain <& Sandeep Jain and found persons. availableon record, the robbery of ornaments from the shop of (|:omplainant Sandeep Jain and in the Rg^ -TTT^.. :,tl IBIil B5; [^..ik "^B-HC-22 •^"•Bt. "!';>"" ~ ...v-y '^SstiP'" sn^T^r h'U'ia 3f^V 5f^icn ^Ji^ 's'si •^ll'yid'1!, HiTil'y'is, (»«iiuy sn^r "q^? 111CTI thliqi.&...^:.'...\O^Sls'^.. ^ 200 f^^s' sii^i^Riw^te process of robbery the appellan- Jain and witness Sanjay Jain is On the basis of aforesc ti. considered opinion that the tnal or irregularity in convicting the c with Section 34 of the IPC anc attempt was made by the appe sentence imposed upon him by th Is&excessive. In the result, the app6al be dismissed and it is hereby dis| 7., ,. ' , .. • - caused hurt to complainant Sandeep elstdblished. |id discussion, this Court is of the |court has not committed any illegality ^ppellant under Section 394/397 read looking to the manner in which the |lant in committing the robbery, the |e trial court also cannot be termed to qiN^^i *iH^?f ^ i^£t<r<ii<^.i< ^T3lf5gq31I^I 3ejhg devoid o^sybstance is Ijable to nissed. sd/- ~ DhirendraMisbra Judge [^t^ ^Raii