SUNDERLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is made to the judgment and order dated 25th of April, 1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir in Sessions Trial No.128/94. By the impugned judgment, the appellant (A-1) has been convicted and sentenced in following manner, with a direction to run the sentences concurrently :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_116_TLCHH0_2013_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-

(3.) Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that except the discovery statement (Ex.-P/3) and seizure (Ex.-P/4) and identification of the ornaments after 14 months, there is no other circumstance against the appellant, therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted u/S 302 IPC. At the most, he may be convicted u/S 411 IPC. He referred to Section 114 (a) of the Indian Evidence Act.