KALLU BARAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07-12-2010 passed in S.S.T.No.25/06 by learned Special Judge (Dacoity), Datia whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 392 of IPC read with Section 11/13 of Madhya Pradesh Dacoity Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam (for brevity 'MPDVPK Act') and sentenced to undergo 10 years' RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.

(2.) Brief facts in narrow compass are that on 06-08-05 when the complainant Datar Singh Bundela was sleeping in the night at the terrace of his house at about 11 pm three persons came there, overpowered the complainant and took away his licencee gun of 315 bore and four live cartridges. The report has been lodged against three unknown persons on 07-08-2005. For that a report was submitted at police station on 10-12-2005 as there was no clue regarding the property of complainant and the accused persons, thereafter gun of the complainant was seized from the appellant -Kallu Barar and after reinvestigation of case vide order dated 29-07-06 from SDO(P), the challan has been filed against 5 persons including the appellant. Learned trial Court after trial of the accused persons including appellant has convicted the appellant for the charge under Section 392 of IPC read with Section 13 of MPDVPK Act and sentenced him as mentioned paragraph 1 of the judgment. Other co-accused persons have been acquitted by learned trial Court although appellant has only been acquitted from the charge under Section 25(1-b) of Arms Act.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court, appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that learned trial Court is not justified in convicting the appellant by the impugned judgment on unreliable testimony of the complainant. Further convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 392 of IPC is not justified on the basis of recovery of weapon after more than 1 year of the incident.