ROSHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants Suba and Roshan along with their companions Chaman and two others are said to have broken into the liquor vend at village Dhakal at about 2.30 AM on February 23, 1985, where Mohinder Singh and Ved Parkash were sleeping: A sum of Rs. 1050/- which was lying in the liquor vend being the sale proceeds there were taken from there by the appellants as also a wrist watch of Mohinder Singh and the clothes of both Mohinder Singh and Ved Parkash. It is in respect of this matter that Suba Roshan and Chaman stand convicted under Section 392 and sectio 458 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- on each count.

(2.) HAVING regard to the nature and quality of the evidence, as has come on record, the conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot possibly be sustained. The prosecution case rests upon the testimony of P.W. 10 Mohinder Singh and P.W. 11 Ved Parkash who deposed to the effect that robbery was committed in the liquor vend where they were sleeping on the night of February 23, 1985, and that cash, a wrist watch and their clothes were taken away by the culprits. The important point that arises for consideration here is with regard to the identity of these culprits. Admittedly, there was no lamp or other light there at hat time. The only light that these. witnesses spoke of was the torch light flashed at them by they say the appellant Suba. These witnesses would have the Court believe that it was by virtue of this torch light that they were enabled to recognize the appellants as the currents, when they happened to see them in custody at Narwana, about a month after the incident. On the lice of it, such evidence inspires no confidence and it would consequently be very unsafe to rely upon it.

(3.) AS regards, the recoveries of the Kurta Exhibit P2, Pyjama, Exhibits P3 and P4, it was the finding of the trial court itself that the evidence showed that these clothes had been recovered before the disclosure statements had been made with regard to them by Suba Roshan and Puran. This evidence cannot therefore, be relied upon to implicate the appellants in this case. Further P.W. 6 Inder Singh a tailor, deposed that he had made the Kurta Exhibit P2 and the Pyjama Exhibit P3 for P.W. 10 Mohinder Singh, it this Mohinder Singh claimed that his Pyjama was Exh. P 4, while P.W. 1 Ved Parkash claimed the Kurta Exhibit P2 and Pyjama Exhibit P3 to be his.