MEENA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 8/5/2008 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir in Criminal Appeal No. 30/2008 upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 3/4/2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir in Criminal Case No. 449/2008 whereby the accused/applicants have been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 380 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500.00, with default stipulation.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25/2/2008 at about 4.30 O'clock in the afternoon applicants/accused had went to Jewellery Shop to purchase anklet in the shop of complainant and asked him to show anklets, then complainant showed them 30 pairs of anklets of different design. They saw the said anklets for some time and then they left the shop saying that they will come afterwards. In the meantime, the complainant counted the pairs of anklets then he found eight pairs worth Rs.11,000.00 of anklets missing. On being suspicion, he asked his neighbours to chase the accused persons and after some time, both the applicants/accused persons were caught red handed and the stolen articles were recovered from their possession. Based on above facts, present crime under Sec. 380 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC was registered against the applicants. After usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/applicant before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janjgir. Charge under Sec. 380 IPC was framed and the same was explained to the applicants/accused, which they denied and their plea was recorded.

(3.) In order to prove the guilt of accused/applicants, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/applicants were also recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. Apart from this, one witness namely Dileep Kumar Sharma (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case.