SHAIK KHURSHEED Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is Directed against the judgment in Sessions Case No. 19 of 1998 on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 8-3-2000, convicting the AS-appellant for the offence under Section 342 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. He was also convicted under Section 392 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The Inspector of Police, City Crime Station, Detective Department, Hyderabad, filed a charge sheet before XXI Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, against six accused alleging that on 20-9-1996 at about 11.00 p.m., while P.W. 1 was running STD Booth-cum-Xerox Center at Nagarjuna Nagar, Tarnaka, a Maruti Van came and stopped there and four persons entered into the shop. They threatened him and took away the Xerox machine and cash of Rs.2,500/- from the cash box after confining him in the cabin room. They also disconnected the telephone wire while scuttling away from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter P.W.I lodged Ex.Pl report with the police. The police registered a case under Sections 342 and 392 of IPC and sent copies of the FIR to all concerned. During the course of investigation, PW11 arrested all the accused on the intervening night of 9-10-1997 at Nacharam, Malkajgiri Basing on the confessional statement given by Al, Xerox Machine-M.O.l was seized from the house of the 1st accused. P.W.6 conducted Test Identification Parade in respect of all the accused and in that Test Identification Parade, P.W.I identified A3 (present appellant) as the person who came to his shop on the date of accident along with others and after completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet.

(3.) On behalf of the prosecution, 11 'witnesses were examined and 10 documents were marked, besides the case property M.O.I. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record believed the evidence of P.W.I and convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused No.3 as aforesaid. The trial Court found the other accused not guilty of the charges levelled against them and accordingly they were acquitted. It is as against the said conviction and sentence A3-appellant filed present appeal questioning the legality and correctness thereof.