SHAHNAZ Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging her conviction for an offence under Section 392 of IPC and the sentence of two years imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/-, applicant has filed this revision under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure and calls in question conviction ordered by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadarwara on 4th May, 1998 in Criminal Case No.262/1997 and its affirmation in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara vide order dated 1.10.99 passed in Criminal Appeal No.48/98.

(2.) According to the prosecution story it is alleged that on 24.1.97 at about 3 p.m. complainant P.W.1 Munnalal and P.W.2 Pappu Nath went to the house of the petitioner looking for one Rajni. It is stated that when the complainants went to the house, the petitioner invited them inside her house and thereafter asked Munnalal whether he would like to be entertained by the petitioner. When Munnalal refused, it is alleged that she took out a knife and by threatening Munnalal snatched Rs.80/- from him. Munnalal is said to have lodged the FIR on the same day at 3 p.m. and thereafter the investigation was lodged and the prosecution ordered. The prosecution examined four witnesses namely, P.W.1 Munalal, P.W.2 Pappu Nath, P.W.3 Sanjay Singh and P.W.4 ASI Suresh Khare. Petitioner gave her own statement and based on the material and evidence that came on record impugned action has been taken.

(3.) Shri A. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the statements of all the four witnesses as indicated herein above, pointed out serious discrepancies in the same and sought for interference mainly on the ground that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse, contrary to material available on record and is unsustainable.