DASRATH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Dashrath son of Mool Chand resident of village Sunderpur Gajel, Police Station Rasulabad, district Kanpur, against the judgment and order of Sri K.K. Chaubey, IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur, passed in Sessions Trial No. 98 of 1976 (State v. Dashrath) on 30.9.1978 convicting and sentencing him for an offence punishable under section 411 Indian Penal Code to one years R.I.

(2.) The facts of the present case fall in a brief compass. According to the F.I.R. lodged by Ram Charan complainant (PW 1), four persons had committed robbery in his house in the night between 1/2-10-1975 at about 11. They were all in known persons. It is claimed that they were identified during the commission of the robbery by the inmates Ram Charan complainant (PW 1) and his daughter Smt. Ganga Devi (PW 4) and the other incoming witnesses, named in the F.I.R. The property, details of which were also given in the F.I.R. was said to have been looted by the miscreants. That property included a wrist watch which was said to have been snatched from the wrist of Ganga Devi (PW 4). The FIR was lodged the next day i.e. on 2.10.1975 at 12.10 noon at P.S. Rasulabad, eight miles away from the village of occurrence.

(3.) It was on 23.11.1975 that the police party consisting of constable Chandradhar Dubey (PW 7), constable Chandrapal and constable Maqsood Hasan (PW 8), on information being received from an informant, in the presence of public witnesses Soney Lal (PW 2) and Ram Swarup (PW 3) happened to arrest the appellant at Sunderpur Gajan ghat in connection with suspicion of his carrying an illicit arm. His personal search yielded to the wrist watch (Ext. 1), which he at that time was carrying on his wrist. It is next claimed that soon after this recovery was made both Ram Charan complainant (PW 1) and Ganga Devi (PW 4) arrived at the spot and then recognised the said watch (Ex. 1) to be of Gangadevi (PW 4) which bad been looted away by the robbers in the night of the occurrence. Soon after recovery memo (Ex. ka. 5) was prepared on the spot by constable Chandradhar Dubey (PW 7) and it was signed by the said two constables and attested by the two public witnesses. In due course the appellant was committed to the court of Sessions to face his trial under sections 395/397 and section 412 Indian Penal Code. It would be unnecessary here to enter in to the appreciation of evidence led in this case and would suffice to say that the learned Sessions Judge recorded the following findings: