MOHD OMAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 1092 of 2002 was preferred by A2 and Criminal Appeal No. 1150 of 2004 was preferred by A3 against the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, Medak District dated 5-8-2002 in S.C.No.21 of 2002.

(2.) The appellants and four others were charged for the offence under Section 395 IPC for allegedly committing theft of gold ornaments worth Rs.25,000/- and cash of Rs.10,000/- from the house of PW1 during the night of 1/2-9-2001 at 0030 hours. The appellants and other accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellants and other accused examined PWs.1 to 17 and marked Exs.P1 to P12 and MOs.1 to 3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge after considering the above evidence found all the accused guilty of the charge under Section 395 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy dated 5-8-2002 preferred these appeals challenging its legality and validity.

(3.) The appellants and other accused alleged to have entered the house of PW1 at 0030 hours on 2-9-2001 and committed theft of gold ornaments worth Rs.25,000/- and cash of Rs.10,000/- and fled away with the booty. PW1 gave a complaint to the police mentioning that some unknown persons committed dacoity in his house. It was registered as a crime and the concerned police investigated the case. During the investigation they alleged to have arrested all the accused and, on the information given by the accused during interrogation, MOs.2 and 3-gold ornaments were said to be recovered. The Trial Court after holding that even though the number of accused who entered the house of PW1 is not tallied, though the identification parade to identify the culprits was not conducted, there is evidence of PWs.7 and 9 regarding the confessional statements given by all the accused and the consequential recovery, therefore, all the accused are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 395 IPC.