RAMNATH CHAMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Ramnath has been convicted under Section 394 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that in the intervening night of 24th and 25th September, 1986 there was a robbery in the house of Murari (PW 1). His daughter Santara (PW 2) was robbed of certain ornaments. The report was made to the police. That is Ex. P -1. Three persons Ramnath, Tijwa and Ramkishore were jointly tried for the offence under Section 394/397 IPC. Accused Ramkishore and Tijwa have been acquitted of this charge. Accused Ramnath has been convicted on the basis of his identification in the indentification parade by Murari (PW 1) and Santara (PW 2). The trial Court has found that Santara (PW 2) in her cross -examination has stated that accused Ramnath was shown to her after two or three days of the incident. He was brought to her village by the police. The trial Court has held that Santara (PW 2) appears to have made this statement in cross -examination on account of some confusion. But there is no re -examination of this witness from which it could be ascertained that the statement made by her in para 5 of her cross -examination is not true. When she has clearly admitted that accused Ramnath and Ramkishore were shown to her after two or three days of the incident in her village, that admission cannot be lightly brushed aside. Therefore, with this admission, identification parade which was conducted subsequently becomes valueless. Santara (PW 2) had seen accused Ramnath after two or three days of the incident in her village and he was brought by the police to her village. It can be presumed that her father Murari (PW 2) also must have seen him. The trial Court has disbelieved the recovery of ornaments from the possession of accused Ramnath.