HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhatdsgarh) Motiram. s/o Kartikrain Sahu JUDGMENT Post for judgment on 11.11.2009 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge B'':"":: r State of Madhva Chliattisgarb) Pradesh (Now s^g.s^^-l Motiram s/o Kartikram Sahu, aged 32 years, village- Khamhibhat, Potice Slatton Nayagarh (MP) (Now CG) Shri Satish Gupta, Govemment Advocate for the State. Shri D.N.Prajapati, counsel for the respondent. ?7 (DeUvered on^ 11.2009) The State/appellaat has prefeiTed this appeal against judgment dated 2.8.1991, delivered in Crimmal Case No.371/87 by the Judicial Magistrate Frrst Class, Beinetara, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of fhe charge under Sections 457 and 380 ofthe IPC. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution are fhat in fhe iiiteryeniag nigbt of 20th 85 21st Febn.iary, 1987, coinplameuit- Purushottam Soni was sleeping iu his house. His je-\vellery shop is adjoiainf to his liouse. Various silver omaments were kept ia fhe shop. In fhe laoraiug of 21st Februaiy, 1987, on reachiag bis shop, he caiae to know tbat iu night fheft has been coiiiiuitted by removing tiles of the loof of fhe shop by som.e unknowa person. He saw that various silver oiTianients were y •-~^ >f ^ :s'~'-''^ miniediately reported the m.atter to Police Station- Nawagarh on 21.2.1987 at about 10.20 am. Vide F.I.R. Ex. P/l, crime was registered under Sections 457 & 380 of tbe IPC and uivestigation coiniaenced. During the course of investigation, on the infonnation of aa irifonnant, fhe accused/respondent-Motirain Sahu was caught, who admitted tbat he had coiuniitted the ffaeft. On the basis of his nieiuoraiiduni, tlie Uieft item.s were recovered fi-om. fhe straw ofhis hoiise under Ex. P/4. The recovered article was identified by fhe coiu.plaiuatit in front of C.S. Dhauaajay, TehsUdar, Nawagarh. Thereafter necessaiy legal proceediugs were corupleted. 3. After conipletion of the usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magista-ate, wlio framed cbarge under Sections 457 aad 380 offhe IPC aad read over aad explamed it to fhe accused/respondent. The accused/respondeiit abjured Qie guilt aiid stated that he is iunocent and has been falsely iniplicated m. the criine due to previous eiunity. 4. JT1The Judicial Magistrate after appreciation of fhe evideace and heaitng fhe counsel for respecti.ve parties, acquitted fhe accused/respondent of tlie charges fiained agaiiist hiiu aad convicted hiiu luider Section 411 IPC aiid giviag benefit uiider SecUon 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, released him on a bond of Rs.3000/- for 3 years. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the State. 5 I have heard learaed counsel for the parties at length aad have also perused the record of fhe trial Court. 6. It is evident frora fb.e stateinent of Purushottam (PW-1) fhat ia fh.e mtervening night of 20th and 21st of Februaty, 1987, he was sleeping in his house. The jeweUery shop is adjoiniag to his house. When he woke up in next niomtag, he saw fhat fhe waU of tlie shop was broken, on which, he entered aad saw that fhe omaments, vvhich were kept iit tbe shop, were stolen. In the omaments, sUver sa(i, kardhan, ring, bagnakha, locket etc. were stolen. He gave the list of those articles to fhe Police. Thereafter, he lodged fhe report Ex.P/ 1 to fhe Police Station. He also stated fhat he ideutified all fhe artieles before fhe Tehsildar, Nawagarh as per Ex. P/2. Froia fhe above evidence, it is clear that he had not seea aiiy thief coininittitig fheft. 7. It is also evident from. the statement of Sunil Datt(PW-2) fhat lueiuoraudura of fhe accused/respondent was taken by f&e Police in his presence and the accused/respondent stated fhat he will show fhat place, where he kept the fheft articles. His m.em.oraiiduin is Ex.P/3. This was also proved by S.K.Dubey (PW-4), Investigatuig Officer. According to fhe iiieiiiorauduin offhe accused/respondent, the stolen articles were seized froin fhe straw, which were in fhe courtyard of fhe respondent-Motirain ajnd he himself gave those articles to fhe PoUce after gettuig it from. fhe straw. He was fhe only person, who knows fb.at fhe theft articles are kept ia fhe straw, vAich was also proved by S.K. Dubey(PW-4), Investigatin^ Officer. Therefore, it is clear ttiat ttie fheft articles were seized at tlie ia.staiice offhe accused/respondent. 8. C.S.Dhaaaiijay(PW-3), Tehsildai- had stated tfaat Purushottam Soni(PW-l) had identified the articles(silver omajoaents) ia bis identification. The identification inemo is Ex.P/ 2. ___- -———--' 9. In ttie statem.ent under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused/respondent had not claimed fhose articles aad had stated that he has been falsely implicated ia fhe crune due to previous enmity. 10. Therefore, fhe leamed tdal Court considering fhe evidence, acquitted the accused/respondent on ffae baste fhat fhe prosecution Iias faUed to establish that the accused/respondent had conunitted fhe fheft by lurking house trespass. Therefore, fhe leamed trial Coui~t has not erred in. acquitting fhe respondent under Section 380 & 457 offhe IPC. 11. In view of tbe above, fhe acquittal of the accused/respondent is well nierited and does not caU for aay iuterference. The appeal filed by the State is liable to be disinissed aud it is accordingly disiuissed. _-—..,' R.L.-3han'Nar 3udSe