CHHATRASINH VIRSINH NAYAK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal arises out of judgement and order dated 08. 10. 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,godhra, in Sessions Case No. 382/2003. The appellant was the original accused. He was by the impugned judgement and order convicted for offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. Fine was also imposed.

(2.) AS per charge-exh. 8, it was alleged that appellant with other accused on 7. 8. 2003 at about 10:30 hours descended into the house of the complainant with weapons such as iron pipes, knives, etc. They created atmosphere of terror and with force and coercion took away the keys of the locker and had stolen away VCD, gold locket, cash, etc. , and also had taken away the gold and silver ornaments worn by members of the family and had thereby robbed the complainant to the extent of Rs. 15,900/- worth of cash ornaments and goods.

(3.) THE complainant Karsanbhai Ramabhai Bariya-PW1 was examined at exh. 21. He stated that the incident took place before six months. He was at home at that time along with his wife Chandrikaben, his son Vijay, his daughter Kailasben and his daughter-in-law Sudhaben. At 10:30 at night near his house, he was lying down on a cot when some people arrived flashing torch in his eyes which blindened him. He requested not to flash the torch upon which these people held knives and revolvers and made to follow him quietly inside the house. After entering the house, they also surrounded the other family members and started looting. They had opened the locker and broken the inner compartments. They had taken away one gold locket which was lying in the locker. They had also taken away gold earrings and other gold ornaments. From suitcase, they had stolen cash of Rs. 600/ -. They also took away silver ornaments and tape recorder and VCD and two speakers. They also took away the ornaments worn by his wife, his daughter and his daughter-in-law. He identified muddamal articles, two tape recorders which was taken away from his house by the accused. He was shown the remote of the VCD which also he identified. He was shown gold and silver to which he stated that what was stolen from his house was ornaments and not gold and silver pieces. He stated that the tape recorder was discovered at the instance of accused No. 1 present appellant. 3. 1 In the cross examination, he admitted that in the complaint he had not given any names of the accused. He admitted that he did not have the bills of purchase of muddamal articles.