ANANTRAM BARAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 26.5.1999 passed by the 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in S.T. No.149/98, whereby the appellant No.1 was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 394/398 of IPC and sentenced for seven years' R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo for one year's R.I. in addition, whereas the appellants Nos. 2 & 3 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced for five years' R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, one year's R.I. was directed against each of them.

(2.) THE prosecution's case in short is that on 1.3.1997 at about 11:00 a.m., Rajendra Prasad Nigam (PW-10), Advocate was going from Tikamgarh to Muskara on his motorcycle. When he reached a culvert of Tigaila, three unknown persons stopped him and one accused shown a pistol and others accused persons snatched a sum of Rs.250/- from his pocket alongwith one wrist watch of Romar Company, one golden ring and one silver ring. THEreafter, they tied the hands and legs of the complainant by a rope of nylon and a muffler of the complainant and left him in a field. THE culprits took his motorcycle bearing registration no. MP-15/E-5360. THE complainant went to the Police Station Hamirpur, District Chhatarpur and lodged an FIR Ex.P/2. After sometime, the appellants were arrested by the police. On interrogation, one silver ring was recovered from the appellant Ram Milan, whereas one Romar watch was recovered from the appellant Anantram. Similarly, one hand made pistol of 12 bore alongwith a golden ring was recovered from the appellant No.1 Allu @ Kashi Prasad. On 1.7.1997, a test identification parade was arranged in which the victim identified the appellant No.1 Allu @ Kashi Prasad before the Tahsildar, Nowgaon. On 5.6.1997, remaining appellants were identified by the victim Rajendra Prasad in the test identification parade. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C. Nowgaon, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Chhatarpur and ultimately it was transferred to the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was no named FIR against the appellants. THE robbed property alleged to be seized from the appellants was not duly identified by the victim. Similarly, test identification parade was arranged much late after the arrest of the appellants and therefore, it lost its value. THE appellants may not be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC. In alternate, it is submitted that the appellants remained in the custody for more than two years and therefore, it is prayed that their jail sentence may be reduced to the period, which they have already undergone in the custody.