JOGENDRA ALIAS DUJENDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this criminal revision the accused revisionist has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 27-11-1984 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad.

(2.) The background of the case is that the appellants were named in the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant-Dhanpal stating that while he was coming from the cattle market of Shahjahanpur to his village, he was having a sum of Rs. 1500/- with him, which he had taken for purchasing buffalo. As the buffalo of his choice was not available in the market, he was having the cash with him and he was accompanied by the accused appellant Jogendra who met him in the way. Later on when he left the bus and was coming to his village in the company of Jogendra, the other accused-appellant Devi Saran with another person met him near village Kuti. All were proceeding on foot and at about 8.00 p.m., Jogendra took out his revolver and fired in order to terrorize the complainant Dhanpal. It was a place in the mid of a sugar cane field. Thereafter the appellant Devi Saran and his companion started assaulting Dhanpal with knives and took out the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1500/-. On alarm raised by the complainant, certain witnesses came flashing torches, at which the accused persons immediately ran away from the spot. The witnesses carried him to the house of Pradhan of Lodhipur. The complainant had to stay overnight at Pradhan's place and in the morning Dhanpal's brother-in-law- Latur was given information in village Pawti whereupon he arrived there. The complainant's report dictated by him at Pradhan's place was taken to the police station and he lodged the F.I.R. of the incident. The complainant was thereafter taken to the hospital where his injuries were examined and treated.

(3.) After investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the police before the Trial Magistrate. The prosecution had examined as many as 11 witnesses and from the side of the defence, one witness was produced. The learned Magistrate, after having considered the material available on record, was of the view that though the witnesses P.W. 1 to P.W. 6 had not suported the prosecution version of the case but the reliance was placed upon the account of incident given by the complainant injured himself and believing his version, the Trial Magistrate recorded an order of conviction for the charges framed under Section 394, I.P.C. against the present two revisionist accused persons and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each.