SURAJ Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 26/6/2009 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in ST No.481/2008, whereby the appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced for ten years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, they were to undergo for six months' rigorous imprisonment in addition.

(2.) THE prosecution's case, in short, is that on 28.9.2008 at about 7:40 PM in the evening the complainant Geeta Dubey (PW-3) was coming back from the temple of Shanidev to her house at Sagar. Near Kabula Bridge two boys came on a motorcycle and pillion-rider snatched her Mangalsutra from her neck. Her brother-in-law Sanjiv Dubey tried to catch the culprits, but he was not successful. THE complainant Geeta Dubey had lodged an FIR Ex.P-4 at Police Station Cantt., Sagar soon after the incident in which she had mentioned about snatching of her Mangalsutra of imitation gold having cost of Rs.3,000/-. After sometime the appellants were arrested. THE Inspector B.S. Dhurve (PW-7) interrogated the appellants and got their memos under Section 27 of the Evidence Act recorded and thereafter he seized the imitation gold chain and a motorcycle from the appellant Akhilesh Yadav on the basis of those memos. THE identification parade of the appellants was also arranged. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Sagar and ultimately it was transferred to the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has argued in support of the impugned judgment on the ground that conviction and sentence directed by the trial Court appears to be correct, hence no interference is warranted by this Court in the conclusion drawn by the trial Court.