DHARI YADAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment passed by me shall govern the disposal of above mentioned Criminal Appeals, since both the appeals arise out of common impugned judgment.

(2.) THESE criminal appeals are preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 14/9/2009 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shahdol in ST No.98/2008, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 397 of IPC and sentenced for seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, they were to undergo for six months' rigorous imprisonment in addition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that a false case was registered by the police with the help of the complainant Sikandar. THEre were some inherent flaws in the case. THEre was a business relation of the complainant and the appellant Komal Yadav. THEy were known to each other, and therefore there was no possibility to the appellants to commit a robbery with such persons. Secondly, if robbery was committed by the appellants, then purpose of robbery should be to get the vehicle from the complainant, but the vehicle was left abandoned along with its keys etc. near a talaiya, and therefore it appears to be unnatural that the vehicle was abandoned by the appellants. THEre is a lot of contradictions between the statements given by various eye-witnesses. THE seizure is highly doubtful. Jasvir Singh (PW-9), Ward Member has turned hostile, and therefore the identification of the seized property lost its value. Under such circumstances, the appellants could not be convicted for any offence. THEy are unnecessarily in the custody for so many years. It is prayed that they be acquitted.