KANHAIYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 12.03.2013 and 15.03.2013 respectively wherein the appellant stands convicted under Section 392/34 read with Section 397 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default SI for 6 months. For his second conviction under section 394/34 of the IPC he has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Benefit of section 428 of Cr.P.C. has been granted to the appellant.

(2.) Nominal roll of the appellant reflects that as on date, he has undergone incarceration of 5 years and 8 months. His jail conduct is satisfactory.

(3.) At the outset, learned amicus-curiae submits that the identity of the appellant has not been established. There is nothing to connect him with the crime. The Trial Court has erroneously relied upon the refusal by the appellant to join TIP which was for a valid reason as it has come in the evidence of the complainant (PW-3) that he had seen the accused at Karkardooma Court and it was for this reason that the appellant had refused to join TIP; the appellant already having been shown to the complainant (PW-3) no purpose would be served in conducting TIP. The identity of the appellant not having been established, the judgment suffers from a clear illegality. It is liable to be set aside. This is the only argument which has been addressed before this Court.