SHYAMBABU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under section 374(2) Cr. P.C. is directed against conviction and sentence of the appellant by Shri R.P. Verma, 1st Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Session Trial No. 114 of 1984 decided on 17th May, 1985 convicting them for offences under section 393 read with section 398 I.P C. and sentencing them to seven yearsT R.I. each. The appellant No.1 has also been found guilty under section 25(1)-A of the Arms Act and sentenced to one years R.I. Similarly, appellant No.2 Kanhaiya das has been held guilty under section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one years R.I.

(2.) Prosecution case against the appellants is that on 24-5-1984, complainant Jagan Kurmi (P.W. 1) was going to village Sakeri and had reached Devarhat Khar, when the two appellants stopped him. The appellants were armed with deshi kana and knife and pointed these weapons at Jagan and thereby required him to hand-over everything that he had in his possession. The appellants are also alleged to have searched Jagan and found no cash. Jagan was, however, wearing a silver kardhan on his waist, which the two appellants tried to take out. Jagan resisted and shouted for help. Brahmanpuri Goswami, Banafar Sahu, Kedar Kewar, Dilip Sahu and several others, who were working nearby, came to his rescue. Seeing so many persons coming to help Jagan the appellants are said to have run away. They were, however, chased and apprehended and taken to Police Station along with one deshi katta, two live cartridges and a knife. After investigation they were put on trial for offences aforesaid. The learned trial Judge found that evidence of Jagan (P.W. 1) was fully supported by Jeevandas (P.W. 2) Brahmanpuri (P.W. 3) and Kotwar Anuj Das (P.W. 4). The learned Judge, therefore, found the appellants guilty of offences aforesaid and sentenced them accordingly.

(3.) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants ware not known to the witnesses from before and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the prosecution to hold an identification parade. Since the identification parade was not held, it could not be said with any amount of certainty that the appellants were the culprits. It is also submitted that nothing whatsoever was seized from the possession of the appellants and, therefore, they could not be convicted and sentenced under sections 393/398 I.P.C. It is also complained that no ballistic expert was examined to prove that the seized deshi katta was in running condition so as to convict them for offences under section 25 of the Arms Act. The conviction and sentence, however, are supported by the learned Deputy Government Advocate.