HARISINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8 -7 -86 passed by Shri H.C. Jain. Third Additional Sessions Judge. Morena, in Cr. Appeal No. 155/x4 whereby he has set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence u/S. 394 I.P.C. dated 22 -11 -84 recorded by the Magistrate and remanded the case for retrial with certain directions.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant's aunt aged 60 years wanted to ge to her parents' house He told her that he will be able to do so when he will be free from his agricultural work. It is said that in the meantime on 30 -11 -82 at about 4 P.M. the petitioner carried Kunwarde on the pretext of taking her to her parents' house. He is alleged to have taken her to a field and robbed her there of her silver ornaments, namely Chura, from her hands and feet and thereafter threw her away into a well. Some persons were attracted by the sound coming from the well, peeped into it and called Laxman and other people who took out Shrimati Kunwarde, who then narrated the story. A report was lodged at the P.S. Joura on 2 -12 -82 and a case u/S 394 IPC was registered On 4 -12 -82 the petitioner was arrested and on his information the stolen articles were recovered. On. 3 -12 -82 test identification was head by Sarpanch Ratanlal Dubey, Laxman and Gyasia identified the said articles. During the trial the petitioner pleaded false implication. The learned trial Court relied on the prosecution witnesses and convicted the petitioner u/S 39 IPC and sentenced him to three years R.1. and a fine of Rs. 500/ -. On appeal preferred by the petitioner the learned Additional Sessions judge held that (1) the Prosecution should have examined P.W. Ratanlal Dubey who had conducted the test identification (2) prosecution and the Court should have got the seized articles identified in Court by the witnesses and (3) the Court should have considered whether on the fans of the case a charge u/S. 307 IPC was made. With these directions the learned Additional Sessions Judge remanded the case. Aggrieved by the said order the present revision has been filed.

(3.) IT is contended that the Additional Sessions Judge travelled beyond the scope of powers conferred on an appellate Court u/S 386 (b Cr. P.C. By the impugned order the appellate Court has tried to get the lacuna of the prosecution case filed. The appellate Court should have decided the appeal on the basis of the evidence on record.