BABBU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant Babbu was convicted by a Magistrate First class, Rampur, of an offence Under Sec. 392 IPC and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal his conviction and sentence were upheld by the learned Sessions Judge of Rampur. Hence this revision.

(2.) The facts of the case in short are as follows:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Applicant has argued that on the facts found established by the courts below the Applicant cannot be convicted for an offence Under Sec. 392 IPC as there is no evidence to show that he was one of the four persons who are alleged to have robbed the victim. It is urged that Sri Dwivedi had nowhere stated to have identified the Applicant at the time of the occurrence as one of those four robbers. It is urged further that as the stolen property was recovered from an open place the Applicant cannot be held to be in possession of the same and therefore, no presumption could be drawn against him Under Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act. Reliance was placed in support of this contention on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Trimbak v/s. State of MP : AIR 1954 SC 39.