KISHUN Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in this appeal are challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 30/6/2005 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, Surguja in ST No.265/2004 whereby each of them stands convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13/10/2003 at about 1 am while complainant Dharamjeet along with his wife was asleep in his shop, one Ramlal knocked at the door and asked for Bidi and cigarette which was refused by the complainant. However, upon insistence of Ramlal when the complainant opened the door, four persons forcibly entered the house and three persons stood outside the shop. Thereafter, they asked the complainant to switch off the lights, then made them (complainant, his wife and Ramlal) sit down on the floor and covered them with a bedsheet. They looted one bundle of 100 rupee denomination, gold, cigarette, mixture, Amla oil, total worth Rs.17,500.00 and fled with the threatening to kill if the incident is reported to the police. They were in the age group of 20-25 years and were carrying club and lathi. Later on, Ramlal informed that they were 7-8 in numbers, had got the door of his house opened and when they found nothing in his house, they enquired about the complainant's house and made his open the door of complainant's house under threat. On report Ex.P/1 being lodged by the complainant, the police commenced investigation and arrested accused Ravindra, Jaipal and Kishun and their memorandum statements were recorded. Juvenile accused Antram was also interrogated. The looted articles were seized from the accused and the same were subjected to identification by the complainant. After completing investigation, charge sheet under Sec. 395 of IPC was filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate against accused Ravindra Kumar, Jaipal and Kisun showing accused Bajrangi, Rajesh and Somaru as absconded. Later on, accused Rajesh and Somaru were also arrested and subjected to trial.

(3.) Learned trial Court framed charges under Ss. 450, 395 and 506 Part-II of IPC against the accused persons which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 18 witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under Sec. 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by them in defence.