MANOJ KUMAR BANDA Vs. SANGEETA @ BADKIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission. The applicant has challenged the judgment dated 27.8.2007 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in criminal appeal No.378/2006, whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC. The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the applicant had lodged an FIR against the respondents that they stolen a sum of Rs.1,78,000/ - and some clothings of his wife. On 11.9.2009, when he came back to his house, he found that his money had disappeared. On 11.7.2000, when he went to Bhopal, he saw that amount was kept in a box. Unfortunately, he left the keys of that box in the house itself. The respondent Sangeeta was her servant and it was possible that cash as well as the clothings etc. were stolen by her and her mother. After considering the prosecution's evidence, the learned JMFC, Rewa in criminal case No.341/2014 convicted the respondents for offence punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of IPC and sentenced them but, in criminal appeal No.378/2006, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned judgment acquitted the respondents.

(2.) After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be apparent that it was not mentioned by the complainant that he permitted the respondent Sangeeta to went inside his house in his absence. No sign of burglary was found in the house. It was also established that the respondent Sangeeta had lodged an FIR for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC against the applicant. It was also found that the applicant had illicit relations with the respondent Sangeeta and therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that some clothings of his wife would have been given by the applicant himself to the respondent Sangeeta. None else stolen property was recovered from the respondents Sangeeta and Kalavati. There is an allegation of theft of huge amount of Rs.1,78,000/ - but, no such cash was found with the respondents. Only a sum of Rs.43,400/ - was recovered. However, the applicant could not prove that sum recovered from the house of the respondent was of the applicant. Under such circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the case of burglary and theft. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges. There is no illegality or perversity visible in the impugned order and therefore, no interference can be done in the impugned judgment by this Court in the, by way of a revision. Consequently, the present revision filed by the applicant Manoj Kumar Banda is hereby dismissed at motion stage.

(3.) A copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below alongwith their records for information.