ROSHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Rahman has been convicted under section 394/391 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for seven years.

(2.) The facts found are that on 18.2.1980 at about 4.30 p.m. complainant Rammabai (P.W. 1) was cutting grass in the field of the society outside the village Rusalla; she was wearing a silver Khangoria and two brass todals; she was also carrying Rs. 2/- on her person; at that time appellant and co-accused Roopsingh came then and engaged her in talk in order to divert her attention; then she was caught by the appellant who took out a knife and assaulted her; she caught hold of the knife with her hand but in that process the appellant snatched the silver Khangoria and Rs. 2/- from her person; she received one incised injury on her left palm and one abrasion over her right cheek; hearing her cries Roopsingh (P.W.2) rushed there and the complainant narrated the incident to him. In the meantime the appellant and the co-accused had run away from the spot; since it became dark the complainant went and lodged a report (Ex. P-i) on the next day at ii a.m. in the police station Bina 8 kms. away; she was examined by Dr. M.M. Sharma (P. W. 6) he found one incised abrasion i/8 X 1/8 on her cheek. The appellant was taken into custody on iO.3.i980 and on his memorandum (Ex. P-4) the knife (Article C) was recovered as per seizure memo (Ex. P-5). The memorandum is duly proved by P.S.I. R. N. Rana (P.W. 5). The Panchas Manohar (P.W. 3) and Motilal (P.W. 7) turned hostile. The appellant was Identified in the parade held by V. T. Shronti. There is no reason why the statement of Rana (P.W. 5) could not be accepted. The appellant bad no enmity either with the complainant or with the investigating officer. Nothing has been brought in their cross-examination to disbelieve them. The complainant has duly identified the appellant to be the person who had caused the injuries to her with the knife and then robbed of her ornaments and Rs. 2/- in cash. The defence is of denial and false implication. No defence witness has been examined. Co-accused Roopsingh has been acquitted because he has not been identified either in the parade or in the Court. Therefore, the appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced.

(3.) Accordingly the appeal fails and it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.