RAMJAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment Criminal Appeal No. 1018 of 1978 (Vivek and another v. State of M P.) is also disposed of, as both these appeals arise out of Sessions Trial. No. 15 of 1978. Each of these three appellants-Ramjan, Vivek and Vinod Kumar-has been convicted under section 394/397 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for seven years.

(2.) All these three appellants are residents of Sector No. 1, Bhilai Steel Plant. The complainant Mohanlal (P.W. 1) is an employee in the Bhilai Steel Plant and on 15.8.1977 after finishing his duty at 10.30 p.m. he went to see a drama. At about 11.30 p.m. he was returning to his house on his cycle. When he reached the square of Sector No. 1 and Sector No. 2, he found 4 persons standing there. One of them asked for a match-box and when he got down he was surrounded by them. One person caught hold of his shirt, another gagged his mouth, one person placed a knife on his neck and then his watch and cash of Rs. 125/-were removed. The complainant went to the Chawani police station and lodged a report at about 12 in the night giving description of the miscreants and also the description of HMT Sona wrist watch and the denominations of the currency notes removed from him. The complainant also received injury which has been proved by Dr. B.K. Banerji (P. W. 10). These three appellants and the acquitted accused Yunus Masih were arrested. The police had also arrested one Nanhe Khan but he was discharged by the committing Magistrate. In the identification parade held by a Magistrate, these three appellants were duly identified by the complainant Mohanlal. The stolen watch was recovered from Nanhe Chisthi on the memorandum given by appellants Vinod Kumar and the acquitted accused Yunus Masih. The stolen watch has been identified by the complainant in the identification held by Druv Kumar (P.W. 6). After completing the investigation, the appellants and the co-accused were charge-sheeted. Their defence was of denial and false implication due to suspicion. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by relying on the evidence of the complainant Mohanlal (P.W. 1), corroborated by the F.I.R., Medical evidence, the identification of the appellants and the recovery of the stolen watch, convicted the three appellants while acquitting Yunus Masih, as he has not been identified by the co m p Ia in ant.

(3.) The main contention is that the learned trial Judge committed an error in convicting these appellants on the solitary testimony of the complainant Mohanlal (P. W. 1) without there being any corroboration or recovery from these appellants; the only evidence is the identification by a single witness and the complainant Mohanlal could not identify co-accused Yunus Masih; the Magistrate who conducted the identification parade has not been examined; the complainant had no sufficient opportunity to see these appellant; the offence is only under section 392 at the most and as such the appellants deserve to be acquitted. On behalf of the State it is urged that there is no law that conviction could not be based on the sole identification by a solitary witness; as the complainant was found truthful and reliable there is nothing wrong in accepting his testimony; the complainant had enough opportunity to see the miscreants in the tube lights and mercury light of the square and he was for some time with the appellants as they took him to some distance before he was allowed to go.