CFm5 oooooe8 IN THE HIGHx‘COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR . Criminal Appeal No. V) APPELLANT o (IN JAIL) . Ibrér Ansari, @ Ibrahim Ansari, 5/0. Gulam Rasul Ansari, age 30 years, R/o. Chigau’ha , PS -Chhat arpur Distt— Palamo- Bihar. / u —Versus- RESPONDENTu V; : tate of M.P. throucrh PS— Balarampur Distt- Sarguja, MP. / () II CRIMINAL APPEAL US. 3742 OF THE CODE OF CRMNAL PR OCEDRE U . 'm / S HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR Singie gench : Hon‘b3e Mr. Eus?ice Wifinker Diwaker €rimina¢ Appeai No‘ 13?9 of 1996 ‘ Shri Shak'ri Raj Sinha, counsel for- fhe appellant ‘ Shri Vivek Sharma, PL for The STa‘re/r‘esponden‘r. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF ’ CRIMINAL PROCEDURE J U D G M E N T £ .(01.04.2D11) This appeal is direc’red againsf The impugned judgmen‘f and order dated 24.17.1996 passed by 15" Addi‘riona! Sessions Judge, “@Ambikgpur', Sargu‘ga in Sessions Trisi Noe 23/94 convicting The accusedlnppelian‘i far The affence punishable under Section 393 read wi'ih Section 397 of fhe Indian Pena! Code and sentencing him To undergo rigorous imprisonmem‘ for seven years. N 2i Case of The prosecution in brief is That on 9.11.1992 ai abou‘r 11.15 p.m. F.I.R. (Ex.P-2) was iodged by compiainam‘ Ourumukh Singh (PW—6) a‘i poiice Sfahon Amblkapur ailegmg i'ha‘i fhe accused persons namely Tbrar Ansari and Shauka‘i had hired his vehicle Jeep for Taking the same To RaJpur from Ambikapur. He has alieged ihai' near Pas‘ra barrier jungie, The said jeep was stopped by The accused/oppellanTs showing The counTry made pisToi To The driver, however, The driver snafched The said weapOn—ssom The accused/appellanTs buT in The meanwhile The vehicie meT wiTh an accident Complainant Gurumukh Singh (PW-6) has furTher sTaTed ThaT aT The relevanT Time he was also Traveiing in The jeepi He has furTher alleged ThaT afTer The accidenT one of The accused Tried To assaulT him by knife buT APPELLANT Ibmr' Ansar'i Ce) Ibrahim Ansar'i Versus RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh he sad himself and, fheaffer‘, accused persons fied away from the spot This repam‘ was reistered n—numbered m‘ Ambikapur an iat on H was fransfer-red fo fhe poiice sfcdion, Baimmpur' where crie No. 126/92 wasregisMred against fhe accused/app‘eilan’r under Seion 393 of The Indian Peal Code and under Sectins 25 & 27 of TheAr‘ms Act Affer' competion 0f investigaion aha/Ian as fiied o 30..193 under- Sec‘iions 393 and 397 0f The Indian Pena! Code read wit Sections Z5 and Z7 f The A'r'ms Act owever, whiie framing The chage The Triai‘Caur'T has framed The chares under Secions 393 and 397 af The Endian Pe Cod 3. S) as To hcd The accusediappianT guiiTy'f' prosecuTion has examined as many as é wiTnesses in supper? of iTs case. STaTemenT of The accused/appeiiar was aiso ecorded under SecTio 3 of The Code of Criminai Procedure in which he deied The carge ieveiied againsT him and wedded is innocence and faise imgolicaTion in The Case. 4. Accused hauka‘i was shown as absconder by The Tri courT whre The apoeiianf ha been conicfed and sentenced for The ofence as menTioned above. 5. Heard cosei for The pari'ies an pesed The maTerial avaiiable o record including The judgmenT iugned 6. Counsel for he appellanT submiTs ThaT complainant Gurumukh Singh (PW—6) and his driver ehra Ram (PW-4) have noT supporTed he prosecuTion case nd have been declare hosTiie and, Therefore, nder no cirsTances The accusedappeiianT can be convicTed under ‘ SecTion 393 read wiTh SecTion 397 of The Endian Penal Code. He submiTs ThaT The apoeiianT has already remained in jail for abouT four aT § 69 ve er g u d er m cif n o ‘ l t w n 19 h o H r g T nal e. ? i ei n’ r n 31 n h h S ia eas s v f un d rg n mp T N T a d h cum i tr-x pad years and *wo mon‘rhs and, i‘herefar'e, his sentence may be reduced To fhe period already undergone by him, 7‘ On The oTher‘ hand, counsei for The S’ra'l’e suppgr-Ts fhe impughed judgment and submifs 'khdf fhsugh the complained? Gurum‘ukh Singh (PW-6) and his driver Nehru Ram (PW-4) have been declared hosfiie bu? yet fhe comvicirien of The accused/appeikm‘r is fully jUsTified. 8w Heard counsei for the parfies‘ and perused the maferia! avaiiable on record inciuding ’rhe judgment impugned 9. Gurumukh Singh (PW—6) has s‘fa‘red in his evidence that on the dafe of incident when he and his driver Nehru Ram (PW—4) were going ‘io drop The accused persons at Bairampur, on The way, The vehicle was stopped by the accused persons showing The counTry made pisToi To The driver, however, The driver snaTched The said weapon from The accused/appellanTs buT in The meanwhile The vehicie meT wiTh an accidenT as a resuiT of which he became unconscious and when he regained consciousness, The accused/appeiianT was presenT and, Thereaf'i'er, he does noT know as To where he had gone. He has sTaTed ThaT he does noT know as To why The knife was shown To him by The accused/appellant He has also sTaTed ThaT The TegT IdenTificaTion Parade (Ex.P—1) was conducTecl by The Police InspecTor aT Balrampur‘ AT This sTage, This wiTness was declared hosTile. He has sTaTed ThaT he never reporTed The maTTer To The police vide Ex. P—Z where iT has been menTioned ThaT» an aTienipT was made To rob his vehicle. In The cross-examinaTio'n he has sTaTed ThaT he and The oTher passengers goT down aT Rajpur and, ThereafTer, he lie down on The back side of The vehicle and was unconscious and when he regained consciousness, The accused/appellanTs fled away from The spoT. 10, Nehru Ram (PW—4) has sfm‘ed in his evidence that m fhe reievam‘ fime he was working as Driver of fhe jeep of fhe complainam‘ Gururhukh Singh (PW—6) and when he was going TO EalmmPur' along with Gurumukh Singh (PW-6), on The way, two persons sat 0n Their vehicle and after some fime coun‘ir'y made pistol was shown To him and he was asked io si'op The vehicle however he snatched ’rhe said weapon but fhe vehicle mel Wi’rh an avoidenf and ‘rhe accused persons fied away from The spoi and ‘rhen The report was lodged He has stafedjhaf he can recognize The person who had shown him couni’ry made pis’rol bul'he has refused that he had gone for any Tes’r identification Parade vide Ex.P—1. He has categorically stated that the accused/appellant who was present in the court was not the person who was traveling in the vehicle. Thereafter, this witness was declared hostile. 11. Considering the fact that the complainant Gurumukh Singh (PW-6) and his driver Nehru Ram (PW-4) have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile, merely on the basis of other evidence of the witnesses including that of Investigating Officer, appellant cannot be convicted under Section 393 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. In conclusion, the appeal is allowed. Impugné’h judgment dated 24.7.1996 is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Since appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds stand discharge. G l:TT:f Sdl- l Pritinker Diwaker Judge D/—