1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc No. 680-MA of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 5.2.2010 *** State of Haryana .. Applicant-Appellant VS. Vikesh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S. GILL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Pardeep S. Poonia, Addl. AG Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The respondents namely Vikesh @ Vicky, Naresh Kumar, Sandeep @ Ansu, Ved Parkash @ Sony and Krishan Kumar stood trial for the offence under Section 395 IPC with the allegations that on 17.7.2008 at about 12:30 PM they committed dacoity and looted the complainant Krishan Kumar of Rs.3800/- while an amount of Rs.5700/-, one policy, three mobile sets and Scorpio jeep was looted from Ashok Kumar. Respondent Vikesh, Naresh and Krishan were also tried additionally for an offence under Section 412 IPC since two computers, one monitor, key board and mobiles of Ashok Kumar and Scorpio belonging to Krishan Kumar were recovered from them. During trial, the prosecution produced as many as 14 witnesses and on appraisal of whose testimonies, the learned trial Court, finding the same short to prove the offence under Sections 395 and 412 IPC acquitted them. Dis-satisfied with the same, State of Haryana is seeking leave of this Court to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.8.2009. Heard. It emerges out from the records that the accused were not 2 known to the complainant and other eye witness and no test identification parade was got conducted by the prosecution. Admittedly, the complainant identified the accused for the first time in the Court and thus, the Court below while relying upon various judicial pronouncements held that such an identification is meaningless in the eyes of law. Not only this, the complainant as well as another eye witness Ashok Kumar were found discrepant with each other on material points and the hostility of PW2 Ashok Kumar, who denied the recovery of stolen articles in his presence from the possession of the accused was also one of the vital factor taken into consideration by the learned trial Court while acquitting the respondent-accused. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Court below are either perverse or illegal or based on no evidence. This Court is not inclined to grant the leave asked for. Dismissed. (MEHTAB S. GILL) (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE February 5,2010 Jiten