AJAY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned judgment dated 13th October, 2014 Ajay and Ratan @ Tanu were convicted for offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC. Ratan @ Tanu was also convicted for offences punishable under Section 397 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act. Vide order on sentence dated 15th October, 2014 both Ajay and Ratan @ Tanu were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC. Ratan @ Tanu was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 25/27 Arms Act.

(2.) Learned counsels for the appellants contend that a bare reading of the testimony of the complainant would show that it is full of contradictions; not only did he fail to identify alleged recovery made by the Police officers, in his cross-examination the complainant even failed to identify the appellants. The entire prosecution case is based on the testimony of one single complainant and since his testimony is not trustworthy, no conviction can safely be based on the said testimony. The complainant has belied the version of the Police officers that the arrest was made at his instance and on his information. The entire prosecution case was concocted to avoid the test identification parade as the complainant was not in a position to identify the appellants before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The appellants have been falsely implicated and thus be acquitted.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that in respect of the identification of the appellants there is no anomaly in his examination-in-chief. Though the complainant stated that the recoveries were not made in his presence, however he identified the signatures on all the memos and thus proved that the arrest and recoveries were made in his presence. She further contends that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be effaced totally and if part testimony of the witness is corroborated in material particulars by the testimony of the Police witnesses, the same should be relied upon and conviction based thereon. Reliance is placed on the decision reported as (2006) 2 SCC 450 Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and Ors. v. State of U.P .