AJIJ Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal directed against the conviction of the accused -appellant for offences punishable under Section 451 and 397 of IPC and sentence for each of the said offence to R.I. for 7 years, imposed by judgment dt. 15.11.95 in Sessions Trial No. 399/94 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahendragarh District Sarguja.

(2.) THE prosecution case stated in brief is that complainant Meera Bai (PW -1) and her husband Kariman (PW -2) reside at Amadafai Koriya Kalri. Kariman (PW -2) works in the mines as Mechanic. On the date of incident, i.e. 3.6.94, Kariman (PW -2) had come early from duty at 3.00 a.m. in the night and had gone to fetch water. While, complainant Meera Bai (PW -1) was at home and was sleeping with her children, the accused -appellant came inside the house and caught hold of the neck of Meera Bai (PW -1) and asked her, as to whether she had identified him. Upon this Meera Bai (PW -1) though had identified the accused -appellant deliberately due to fear stated otherwise and told accused -appellant that she has not identified him. The accused -appellant who had a knife in his hand asked Meera Bai (PW -1) to hand over the 'Gold Mohar' worn by her in her neck. Thereafter, the accused -appellant cut the cord of the Mohar and took the 'Mohar' and went away with it. Meena Bai (PW -1) while saving herself received injury on her finger. After the accused -appellant ran away, her husband Kariman (PW -2) came back. Meera Bai (PW -1) narrated the incident to him. Kariman (PW -2) in turn narrated the incident to one Lalit (not examined) and Girija Shankar (PW -4). Meera Bai (PW -1) lodged the report (Ex.P/2) of the incident at Police Chowki Koriya, upon which the offence was registered. Complainant Meera Bai (PW -1) was sent for medical examination by requisition (Ex.P/3). After completion of investigation, charge -sheet was filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for accused -appellant has mainly submitted that, the prosecution evidence is totally unreliable and the statement of Meera Bai (PW -1) that she identified the accused -appellant by his voice does not inspire confidence. As against this, the learned counsel for respondent -State has supported the judgment and finding of the trial Court.