SANTU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10-10-1995 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1995 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh camp Kawardha confirming the judgment of conviction dated 12-6-1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 420 of 1994 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha convicting the applicants under Section 457, I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for twenty days and further convicting them under Section 318 (378), I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for six months and pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo twenty days simple imprisonment, have filed this revision petition.

(2.) . The prosecution case in brief is that on 10-2-1990 one Ashok Kumar lodged a report at Police Station Sahaspur Lohara that certain cash and two Sarees were stolen from his hotel. On the information the police registered crime No. 20/90. During the course of investigation a sum of Rs. 37.40 was recovered from accused applicant Chaitu, and, from possession of applicant Santu two cotton sarees, one plastic bag and one rod were recovered. The said Sarees were put for identification and according to the prosecution the Sarees were rightly identified by the complainant. The prosecution agency recorded the statements of the witnesses and on completion of the investigation submitted the challan. The accused persons were put to trial as they had denied the commission of the offence. The trial Court convicted the applicants and as the appeal proved infructuous these two persons have come to this Court.

(3.) . Shri Ashish Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the applicants, submits that the statements of PW-1 Ashok Kumar the original complainant, it would not appear that he had identified the Sarees. He submits that unless the person to whom the articles belong identifies the articles in a duly constituted identification proceedings, the statements of the other witnesses that the complainant did identify the articles would not provide legal evidence or a legal foundation to record a finding against the applicants. He further submits that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and as the details of the cash amount were not given in the first information report the recovery of the cash money which is otherwise unidentifiable cannot connect the applicant Chaitu with the alleged crime.