VENKATESH ALIAS SEENA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the appellant is the first accused in S.C. No. 17 of 1988 on the file of the learned district and sessions judge, tumkur. Four other persons were arraigned as accused nos. 2 to 5. The charge was one under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of the trial, accused No. 3 narayanappa was absconding. Therefore, the trial proceeded against the appellant and three other accused.

(2.) the trial court has convicted the appellant only on the basis of the alleged recovery made on his voluntary statement ex. P. 13. The article recovered was, a gold ingot from p. W. 2 vishwanath, as according to the prosecution, the gold chain which was sold to p. W. 2 was melted and converted into ingot. The other three accused were acquitted as the prosecution has not proved their involvement in this offence.

(3.) admittedly, the alleged dacoits were not identified by P.W. 3-girijammaand P.W. 5-ramakrishnaiah the wife and husband respectively. It is alleged when they were proceeding to a village called raghuvanahalli at about 8.45 on 1-10-1987, the appellant and 4 others have way laid and stolen the golden chain which was worn by P.W. 3. After this alleged robbery, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 said to have been visited the sister of P.W. 5 and stayed there upto 3-10-1987. There is no evidence on record whether this fact of robbery was informed to the relative of P.W. 5. On 3-10-1987, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 visited the government hospital at tumkur for the alleged injuries sustained by them in the course of this dacoity. The injury certificates exs. P. 1 and p. 2 do not disclose, in the column of the history of the case, that the injuries sustained by these two witnesses were as a result of dacoity held on 1-10-1987. The complaint was given on 4-10-1987 and there was no proper explanation as to the delay caused by P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 to file a complaint before the police regarding this serious offence.