MANGAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mangal Singh is an unhappy man. His grievance is that he has wrongly been convicted and sentenced under sections 397 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Is his anguish justified? Let us see.

(2.) The prosecution story is quite brief. Shorn of unnecessary details, it runs as under. On January 23, 1988 at about 11.25 P.M. three persons holding knives in their hands caught hold of Zuber Rizvi and robbed him of his wrist-watch. Though the Police Station was quite near to the place of occurrence, report was lodged only on the next day and that too in the afternoon. It was only after about a month that the appellant and two others were arrested. The wrist watch, however, was never recovered.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant principally on three grounds. First, he had refused to participate in the test identification parade. Second, he had been identified in court by the complainant Zuber Rizvi, and lastly, the appellant as well as co-accused Kundan in their disclosure statements' had confessed that while they were armed with open knives, they had caught hold of Zuber Rizvi and had robbed him of his wrist watch.