JAGMOHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been preferred by appellants/accused against a judgment dated 25th February 2011 in Special Sessions Case No. 22/2008 delivered by the Special Judge, Datia (Under M.P. Dakaity and Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam), hereinafter referred to Adhiniyam, thereby convicting the appellants/accused for commission of offence punishable under section 397 read with section 13 of the Adhiniyam and sentencing them to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only), each, in default of payment of which to serve additional one year's rigorous imprisonment each by the accused.

(2.) In brief, as per prosecution version, the incident in short, is that on 3rd October 2007 at 8 a.m., when complainant Shahid @ Seth proceeded from his house on his motorcycle with a cash of Rs.50,000/- to purchase goats and coming back at around 2 o' clock, then on the way, between Pathhari to Chak Halai, three miscreants came to him riding on the black coloured Yamaha Motorcycle bearing No. MP07 CB 0693. The miscreants compelled him to stop his motorcycle and by putting the country-made pistol on his chest and neck extorted Rs.35,000/-from his pocket. On the resistance of complainant, they caused injury on his palm by means of butt of the pistol. Thereafter the miscreants fled away from the spot. The complainant the lodged F.I.R. at about 3-50 p.m. on the same day in police station, Jigna district Datia M.P . The investigation was set in motion.

(3.) The contention of the appellants is that the judgment under appeal is against the law and procedure and therefore same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the trial Judge while convicting the accused/appellants did not properly assesse the evidence and the documents on record, therefore, the conclusion arrived at without proper consideration of factual and legal aspects is not sustainable in law. It is argued that the main ingredients of the offence under Section 397 of I.P.C. are not proved by the evidence on record. It is further submitted that for belated test identification of accused Jagmohan, no cogent reason has been given by the prosecution and the conviction of the accused is based upon flimsy grounds. Accordingly, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, judgment under challenge may be set aside and the accused-appellants may be acquitted of the alleged offence.