RAJVIR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is an appeal against the judgment and sentence dated July 13, 1982 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Special Trial No. 47 of 1982, State v. Rajvir and others, under Sections 457, 394 and 397, I.P.C. whereby the learned Special Judge held the accused Rajvir, Santosh, Amar Singh and Ranvir Singh guilty for the offence under Sections 457 and 394 read with Section 397, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo four years' R.I. under Section 457, I.P.C., 7 years' R.I. under Section 394 read with Section 397, I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution in brief is that on 4.2.1982 at about 3.00 a.m., the accused persons looted utensils, garments and jewellery of the house of the sister-in-law of the first informant Smt. Sushila Devi when she was sleeping in her house along with her daughter Padma Devi, Brijesh Kumar Singh, brother-in-law and her son Kuldeep. THE accused persons were armed with lathi, danda, iron rods and country made pistol. THEy entered into the room. When Smt. Sushila Devi awakened she raised alarm but the accused persons caused injuries to Smt. Sushila Devi and her son Pushpendra Singh. THE complainant and Madan Singh and others reached there. THEy saw the accused persons in the light of torch and electricity. THE accused persons fled away along with the looted articles. THE F.I.R. was lodged on 4.2.1982 at about 8.15 a.m. THE written report is Ext. Ka-1 and chick F.I.R. is Ext. Ka-3. THE Investigating Officer inspected the torch of the complainant and prepared its memo Ext. Ka-2. THE injuries of Pushpendra and Sushila Devi were examined on 4.2.1982 at about 10 to 10.15 a.m. THE injury reports are Exts. Ka-7 and Ka-8. THE Investigating Officer after usual investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. THE accused persons were charged for the offence under Sections 457 and 394 read with Section 397, I.P.C. THEy pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire evidence on record. It is undisputed that a robbery has taken place in the house of sister-in-law of the complainant. It is suggested to the complainant P.W. 1 that the robbery was committed by some unknown persons. Besides that there is statement of the complainant Ram Naresh Singh who has given the description of the occurrence and claimed to have seen and identified the accused persons when they were coming out from the house of Smt. Sushila Devi. On the information received from Smt. Sushila Devi he lodged a written report Ext. Ka-1 in the next morning. The other witness Smt. Sushila Devi is victim and injured witness. She has given the entire description of robbery committed by the accused persons in her house. Therefore, it is proved that a robbery was committed in the house of Smt. Sushila Devi in the night of 3/4.2.1982 wherein the articles of her house were looted.