STATE OF M P Vs. MUKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant - State has directed this appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4.4.1995 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No. 7/1994 acquitting the respondent from the charge of Section 392 and 392 / 397 of IPC. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 4.9.1993 at about 8 o'clock in the night the complainant-victim-Prakash Chand while riding his motor cycle was going towards the bus stand, Rahatgarh from his residence. On the way, he was anticipated with a below of stick by the respondent. Resultantly he sustained the injuries on his back and fell down with his motor cycle. Thereafter respondent by showing the knife had taken out purse from his pocket, in which according to prosecution Rs. 500/- with one diary was kept. The alleged incident was witnessed by Kamal, Mohd. Yusuf, (PW-3) Shikhar Chand and Nemichand Jain, (PW-10). Soon after the incident on lodging the FIR, (Ex.P-4) by the victim, he was sent to the hospital, where on medical examination, his MLC was prepared by Dr. Arif Khan, (PW-6). On completion of investigation, the respondent was charge sheeted for his prosecution under Sections 392 and 397 of IPC.

(2.) The case was committed to the Sessions Court where on framing the charge of Section 392 and 392/ 397 of IPC, the respondent abjured the guilt, on which the trial was held in which as many as nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. On appreciation of such evidence, the respondent was acquitted from charge framed, on which the State has come to this Court with this appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment with a prayer to punish the respondent under the aforesaid charge.

(3.) Learned PL Shri Rakesh Keshwarwani after taking me through the record of the trial court by referring the deposition of the victim Prakash (PW-1) as well as FIR, (Ex.P-4) argued that this witness by proving the incident, as stated in the FIR also proved the test identification parade, (Ex.P-3) held with respect of his stolen purse by Makhan Singh, (PW-2), the Sarpanch of the village. According to counsel, the testimony of this witness regarding alleged robbery has been further supported by the eye witness Mohd. Yusuf, (PW-3) and also till some extent by the other alleged eye witness Nemi Chand Jain, (PW-10). So far memorandum of respondent disclosing the place of concealment of the stolen property recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and its seizure memo, whereby at the instance of respondent such purse was recovered, have been proved by the Investigating Officer Shri H.P. Singh, (PW-9). He fairly conceded that the independent witnesses of such memorandum and the seizure memo namely Gowardhan and Raja Ram on recording their depositions turned hostile. In continuation, he said that in any case from the evidence available on record, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent after anticipating the victim Prakash with intension to snatch his purse caused him the injury on his back by the blow of stick and thereby committed the offence of robbery. In such premises, he said that in any case on re-appreciation, if the Court finds that offence of Section 397 is not made against the respondent even then he deserves for conviction for the offence of robbery, made punishable under Section 392 of IPC and prayed to convict the respondent under such Section by allowing this appeal.