SATYA AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24-5-2012 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, C. G., in Sessions Trial No. 03/2011 whereby and whereunder the trial Judge after holding the appellants guilty for robbery and at the time of attempting robbery armed with deadly weapon firearm, convicted them under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "the IPC") and sentenced them rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month to each appellants.

(2.) Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence, the Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality.

(3.) As per the case of the prosecution, on 26-6-2008, at about 9.00 p.m., when Anand Gupta (PW-8) was returning to Balodabazar from village Sonadih via Latua, three persons in a motorcycle made overtake and when the motorcycle of the complainant got fell down being slipped in the mud, appellant Satya alias Satyaprakash alias Pradeep (A-1) and other two persons looted him, his mobile phone and Rs. 400/- and also his motorcycle CG 04 CD 0943 and ran away from the spot. After the incident. Anand Gupta (PW-8)/ the complainant, lodged the First Information Report before Balodabazar police. Police registered the FIR (Ex.-P/10) vide registering the crime number against the persons who committed the robbery and started investigation. During the investigation, appellant Manjeet alias Kallu (A-2) gave disclosure statement (Ex.- P/1). Appellant Satya alias Satyaprakash alias Pradeep (A-1) gave disclosure statement Ex.-P/2. The looted motorcycle was duly recovered in abandoned condition. Police arrested both the appellants vide Ex.-P/8 and Ex.-P/9. Executive Magistrate conducted the test identification parade of both the appellants. The complainant identified both the appellants during the test identification parade. The spot map was prepared vide Ex.-P/11. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "the Code"). After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balodabazar, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Raipur, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar received the case on transfer and conducted the trial. During the trial, the appellants were charged for the offence under Sections 397, 398 of the IPC. Both the appellants denied the charges and prayed for trial.