RAJ GANGARAM BADHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant against his conviction in Sessions Case No.502 of 1980 by judgment dated 13th August, 1982. The appellant herein was charged for an offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. He has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 411 and sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year. He has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 392 read with 397 and 392 of I. P. C. The matter had come up before me on account of the fact that the warrant of arrest issued by this Court on the appellant failing to give fresh bond has not been executed. The appeal is of the year 1982. We are now in 1998. The Lawyer appearing in the matter has sought liberty to withdraw on the ground of ill health.

(2.) I have perused the judgment. Para. 19 of the judgment of the Sessions Court itself is self indicative. The said paragraph reads as under :- " However, the crucial question is whether the accused were the robbers. There is no direct evidence against the accused. If the truth is to be told, the complainant has, in clear and unequivocal terms, admitted that the accused in the Court were not the robbers who came to his shop. He has positively asserted that accused No.1 (Raj Gangaram) did not come to his shop. Accused No.1 (Raj Gangaram) was not the robber who came to his shop. He has also testified that accused No.2 (Dashrath) was also not one of the robbers and he did not identify accused No.2 (Dashrath) in the test identification parade. It is profitable to hold that the complainant's wife, Suguna (P. W. No.2) is not in a position to identify any of the accused as robbers. What I want to emphasize is that , there is no direct evidence against the accused. " Thus the complainant himself has not identified the accused. On the contrary in his evidence as recorded by the learned Sessions judge he has made a statement that the accused was not the robber, who came to his shop. It is true that some recovery has been done at the instance of the appellant herein. It may be noted that in para. 5 of the judgment the learned judge has recorded that the present appellant was arrested on 16th July, 1980. On interrogation what is sought to be recovered from him is one wrist watch. This is the only material against the appellant. In the test identification parade of the appellant herein was not produced in the Court. The learned judge has, therefore, came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to identify the accused No.1. In the absence of the eye witnesses identifying the appellant, his subsequent arrest and recovery is suspicious.