RAJESH SONI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 392 of IPC vide judgment dated 25.3.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal in criminal case No.2008/2002 and sentenced for 2 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In criminal appeal No.91/2004 the learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal vide judgment dated 2.11.2004 dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved with the judgments passed by both the Courts below, the applicant has preferred the present revision.

(2.) The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 26.4.1999, at about 6.45 p.m. in the evening, the complainant Lata Wadhwani (P.W.1) was coming back from a shop of Laundry to her house, situated at BDA colony, Koh-e-fiza, Bhopal. In the way, the applicant came from the opposite direction and raised his hand, as if he would assault the complainant and thereafter, he snatched the golden chain of the applicant from her neck. On her shouting, the witnesses Ravi (P.W.2) and Nandlal (P.W.3) ran towards the applicant and ultimately, he was caught red handed. The Head constable Ashok Upadhyay (P.W.4) also came to the spot and he also participated in holding the applicant. The complainant shown the piece of chain and pendent, whereas, remaining portion of the chain was obtained from the accused, which was given to the complainant by the accused. Thereafter, the applicant was taken to the Police station Koh-e-fiza, where the complainant had lodged an FIR, Ex.P/1. The investigation officer seized a piece of chain and pendant from the complainant by seizure memo, Ex.P/3, whereas remaining portion of chain was seized from the applicant by seizure memo, Ex.P/4. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court.

(3.) The applicant abjured his guilt. He took a specific plea that he was employed in the shop of the complainant and he was not given the wages of two months and therefore, when he went to seek the amount of wages then, he was confined with help of police and a false case was registered against the applicant. However, no defence evidence was adduced.