ANWAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are two appellants before this Court Anwar and Mohd. Alam. They are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 27.3.2006 and 30.3.2006 respectively; each of them had been convicted under Section 392/34 of the IPC and had been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ - in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 1 month.

(2.) NOMINAL rolls of the appellants have been requisitioned. It reflects that as on the date when appellant Anwar had been enlarged on bail he had suffered incarceration of 2 years and 2 months. Mohd. Alam had suffered incarceration of 3 years 5 months on the date when his sentence had been suspended.

(3.) RECORD further shows that Anwar was arrested on 24.6.1998. His disclosure statement was recorded. Pursuant to this disclosure statement he had led the police party to his house from where he had got recovered one blue coloured raxin suitcase and two bags and a briefcase; they were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW -10/G. This memo has been perused. It has been attested by two witnesses namely constable Jagat Singh and SI Mahender Dahiya (PW -6). Constable Jagat Singh has not been examined. PW -6 in his entire deposition has stated nothing about this recovery having been got effected at the instance of appellant Anwar. This Court agrees with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that recovery is doubtful for the reason that the recovery memo having been attested by two witnesses of whom one witness has not been examined and second witness has totally become silent on this recovery; there are dark shadows of doubt created upon this recovery; which recovery is suspicious and thus cannot be relied upon. Recovery is thus liable to be disbelieved.