BHUPENDER SINGH @ BHUPI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 27.01.2006 & 31.01.2006 respectively wherein the appellant along with his accomplice has been convicted under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 3 months.

(2.) NOMINAL roll of the appellant has been requisitioned which reflects that as on date when he had been granted bail i.e. on 18.07.2006, he had undergone incarceration of about 2 months and 7 days.

(3.) IN her cross -examination, she admitted that a sum of Rs.39,890/ - which was recovered from the accused was taken on superdari by her; she had informed the police at about noon time; she was alone in the house at that time. She further admitted that the accused persons had bolted the door from outside; she had raised alarm. The 'pradhan' of their neighborhood had also reached the spot. One of their neighbours who was a police officer had apprehended the appellant. Her thumb impression was taken on some papers. She admitted that she knew SI Lal Singh (PW -3). He was residing in Bindapur Police Station; she further deposed that PW -3 came to her house at 02:00 PM. She admitted that her husband was a vendor and was selling utensils on pheri; he at that time being in jail in a NDPS case and was in custody for the last 2 -3 years. She admitted that he had left no money with her. She further admitted that she was doing the job of cleaning utensils and cleaning houses of others; she was earning Rs.800/ - per month. She admitted that she let out two rooms on rent for which she was getting Rs.600/ - each. She admitted that PW -3 SI Lal Singh used to visit her house and she also used to visit him. She admitted that she needed Rs.50,000/ - to get her husband released from jail and she had to give Rs.40,000/ - to her lawyer. She denied the suggestion she in connivance with PW -3 had falsely implicated the appellant in the present case.