PRAMOD @ BHURA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a jail appeal against the impugned judgment dated 28.2.1997 passed by the Third Additional Session Judge, Sagar in S. T. No.44/95, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted under Section 397 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for 1 year.

(2.) In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that on 29.7.1994 near about 4:30 pm the complainant Govind Prasad along with Abdul Rehman was going by cycle having weekly payment to be distributed. Near about Udasi Ashram, Police Station Motinagar, the appellant thrown chili power on the eyes of Govind Prasad and thereafter, snatched away a bag containing Rs.70,500/- from the possession of Govind Prasad. When Abdul Rehman tried to catch hold the appellant-accused, he run away by showing Khukhari in his hand. FIR was lodged by Abdul Rehman at the Police Station Motinagar which was registered at Crime No. 300/94 for the offence under Sections 394 and 397 / 34 of the IPC against the appellant-accused. During investigation, stolen property was found in the possession of three other co-accused persons namely Vinod, Ramji and Shriram. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. After trial, learned trial court acquitted other co-accused persons namely Vinod, Ramji and Shriram and the appellant-accused was convicted under Section 397 of the IPC and sentenced as mentioned earlier.

(3.) This appeal has been preferred from jail stating that the appellant- accused is innocent and the finding of the trial court is contrary to law. The appellant-accused has been provided legal aid and the learned counsel has been appointed from the legal aid. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused after going through the record has fairly expressed that there is an evidence on record against the appellant with regard to conviction under Section 394 of the IPC but so far as the conviction under Section 397 of the IPC is concerned, from the record it appears that the appellant has not caused any grievous injury to any person or not made any attempt to cause any grievous hurt to any person and it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant-accused had deadly weapon at the time of commission of offence as no weapon has been recovered in the case and the appellant-accused has not caused any injury by using the alleged weapon. No description has been given about the so called weapon of Khukhari. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant-accused used any deadly weapon during incident. Hence, his conviction under Section 397 of the IPC be set-aside and instead thereof, he be convicted under section 394 of the IPC. It has also been submitted that he has remained in custody from 12.8.1994 till 22.5.1996 and from 28.2.1997 till 20.1.1999.