SAMRATHSINGH TAKHATSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Jail Revision, preferred against the judgment of the sessions Judge, Guna in Jail Appeal No. 128 of 1978, which was filed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mungavali in Case No. 434 of 1976 in which he convicted the applicant under section 457 read with section 75 and section 380 read with section 75, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him for three years' rigorous imprisonment under each count and also ordered that the sentences will be suffered one after another.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that Mohanlal (P. W. 2) is a resident of village Keshopur. In between the night of 21-6-1976 and 22-6-1976, mohanlal (P. W. 2) tied his ox in his court-yard and he slept in his house. When he saw in the morning, he saw that his court yard was open and his ox which was tied by him, was missing. He searched for it for a day or so and when he did not get the ox, he reported the matter on 24-6-1976 to Thana, piprai. The report is Ex. P/4. The accused Samrath Singh and Lalla sold the ox for Rs. 420 to one Gorelal (P. W. 7 ). Subsequently, it was sold to Lakhan (P. W. 3), a resident of Jadia for Rs. 550 by Gorelal (P. W. 7 ). The ox was seized and recovered from Lakhan (P. W. 3 ). There was an identification parade and in the identification parade Mohanlal (P. W. 2) identified the ox correctly. Therefore, against both the accused challan under sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code was filed. At the time of the charge, there was already a charge that accused Samrath Singh was already convicted under section 411, Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Guna. The accused denied the guilt. They also denied that they sold the ox to Gorelal (P W. 7 ). They also denied that the ox was recovered at the instance of and on the information given by them. The trial Court framed only one point for consideration and that is whether the ox belonging to Mohanlal (P W. 2) was stolen or not. To come an affirmative conclusion to this question, the Court has relied on the statement of Mohanlal (P. W. 2) and the report Ex. P/4. It has placed its reliance on the identification parade and has come to the conclusion that Mohanlal (P. W. 2) has correctly identified the ox. Therefore, it belongs to him and because of the report, it came to the conclusion also that the accused have committed the offence of which they are charged. It has believed the statements of Sundarlal (P. W. 1) and Mohanlal (P. W. 2 ). Therefore, the trial Court has convicted the accused. The appeal filed by them was dismissed. This is a revision filed by Samrathsingh.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant Shri Akhil kumar Shrivastava was appointed as amicus curiae to act in the case. After hearing his arguments, I must mention here that he has argued very ably and put before me all the possible arguments in the case.