SATYENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6th of December, 1989 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon, in Sessions Trial No. 24/1989 whereby the Appellants have been convicted under Sections 457, 394 and 450 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, 5 years and 5 years respectively. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts of the case ate that on 08.9.1988 P.W. 1 Dulichand and his wife Kamala (P.W. 2) alongwith their daughter, namely Ku. Sushma, were sleeping in their house. Dulichand was a shop keeper, who was having one small shop on a portion of the said house. In the mid night, they heard some noise, on which they woke up. THEre was no light in the village, therefore, P.W. 1 switched on his Torch and saw that two persons were trying to take away the cash box of his ship. One of the said persons had covered his face with some cloth (Lungi). When they saw that the complainant (P.W. 1) has woken up, the person who had covered his face, assaulted him with the help of iron chain (Sakal which is used in the village for closing the doors.) P.W. 1 received injuries on head, left arm and face and blood started oozing from his nostrils. During scuffle, P.W. 1 Dulichand removed the veil of the assailant and he could identify that the assailant was accused Satyanedra Kumar. Seeing all this, the other assailant also tried to assault the complainant, on which the complainant started raising hue and cry and the intruders ran away from the place of occurrence leaving the cash box there in the house of complainant. At the time of Marpit, the complainant had tried to defend himself with the help of Torch, due to which, the glass portion of the Torch was broken and various articles contained in the cash box also fell down from the hands of accused and those things were scattered on the floor. On hearing hue and cry, Pila Ram, Aktu Ram, Sada Ram, Vipat and Nanku etc. reached to the house of complainant Dulichand, to whom, he narrated the story by telling the names of both the assailants i.e. accused Appellants No. 1 and 2. THE report of the incident was taken on Dehati Nalishi Ex. P.1 on 09.9.1988, which was recorded by P.W. 7 Devkinandan Sharma. This Dehati Nalishi Ex. P.1 also contains the names of assailants and it also contains the description of articles (properties) which were involved in commission of the aforesaid crime. On the basis of this report, the Investigating Officer prepared site plan under Ex. P-9. THE injured complainant Dulichand was sent for medical examination under Ex. P-5. He was examined by Dr. Sudhakar Damle (P.W. 6) who gave his report under Ex. P-6. Since the victim was complaining about injuries in nostrils, he was sent for further examination to ENT specialist under Ex. P.3 and was examined by Dr. S.K. Agrawal (P.W. 5) who gave his report dated 16.9.1988 (Ex. P.4)

(3.) THE prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the Appellants, examined as many as 8 witnesses. THEreafter, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the material appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and proposed for examination of a defence witness, in consequence of which, defence witness Jairam Singh (D.W. 1) was examined.