DASHRATH Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.10.2000 passed by Additional Session Judge, Barwaha (West Nimar) in S.T. No.20/1997, whereby the appellants were convicted for offence punishable u/S.332/34 of the IPC and sentenced them to one year rigorous imprisonment and u/S.333 & 365 of the I.P.C and further sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 -3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/ -, each in case of default of payment of fine they were to undergo additional four months imprisonment on each count.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for elucidation are that appellants were the bus conductors and they were not collecting the fares from the passengers. During the checking appellants were found guilty and the complainants S.B. Singh, P.R. Sharma and H.S. Sharma, who were the officers of M.P. Rajya Pariwahan Nigam, lodged the report against the accused/appellants. Due to this enmity appellants kidnapped to all the complainants and assaulted them by lethal weapons, as a result complainants sustainedgrievous injuries and sustained fracture. The offence was registered at Police Station Barwaha (West Nimar). Upon the complaint of the complainant case was registered against the appellants. After framing of charge and recording of evidence, appellants were convicted as stated above, hence the present appeal.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellants have urged that the conviction is contrary to the principles of law. The Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence and there are material omissions and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Judge of the lower Court had erred in discarding the plea of alibi of accused Dashrath, so also the defence witness Naresh Kumar D.W.1 and D.W.2 Dashrathsingh. However, the prosecution has been unable to prove the offence under Sections 332/34, 333 and 365 of the IPC. Counsel also stated that the appellant No.1 has almost undergone custodial sentence 13 days and the applicant No.2 has almost undergone custodial sentence 140 days approximately.