PARAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order dated 17-6-77 passed by Sessions Judge Deoria in a case under Section 392 IPC.

(2.) IN the year 1974 Ragghu Ram PW 1 was the Munim of the Firm M/s. Mani Ram Rampat Ram. On 11-3-74 at about 3.30 P. M., he had been returning to his Firm after realising Rs. 12,000/- as dues of the Firm from various shop-keepers. It is said that when he reached in front of Green Medical Hall on Arjun Road in the town of Deoria, two persons intercepted him. One of them caught him from the back and the other snatched his bag containing the said sum of Rs. 12,000/-. He raised an alarm whereupon Babu Ram PW 2, Vikram PW 3, Shiv Shanker, Durgeshwar Pande and several others arrived. They saw the miscreants in the electric light of the street pole, but they could not apprehend them. Ragghu Ram went to the shop of the Firm and got a report of the incident written out by one Basi Lal. Armed with that report, he went to P.S. Kotwali and lodged it there at 10. 20 P. M. S. I. Ram Kiran Yadav P. W. 11 was present at the thana and he immediately took charge of the investigation. He went to the spot and recorded the statements of the material witnesses on 15-3-74. The investigation of the case was taken up by S. I. Achhaibar Nath Dubey S. O. P. S. Kotwali. On the morning of 16-3-74 he went to the house of the applicant and arrested him. He interrogated the applicant and the applicant told him that he had got Rs. 9595/- with him and he could give it to him. He then took out the said sum from his house and gave it to S. I. Achhaibar Nath Dubey. The applicant was made 'Ba Pardah' and taken to Kotwali. The money recovered from his was also deposited at the Kotwali. The applicant was sent to Jail on 17-3-1974 and admitted there sometime in the evening. The applicant was put up for identification in Jail and he was correctly identified by Ragghu Ram PW 1, Babu Ram PW 2, Vikram PW 3 and Shiv Shanker. After receiving the results of identification and after completing the investigation S. I. Achhaibar Nath Dubey submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant.

(3.) THE story of the crime as narrated by the witnesses stands unchallenged and conclusively proves to commission of an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC and indeed the learned counsel for the applicant has made no attempt to question the factum of the occurrence. Accordingly, all that is necessary for me is to discuss the evidence and endeavour to judge whether or not the participation of the applicant in this crime has been established beyond reasonable doubt.