BHOJ RAJ Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.02.1995, as passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Criminal Appeal No. 20/1993 whereby the learned Appellate Judge partly allowed the appeal preferred by the accused -petitioner against the judgment and order dated 27.11.1993, as passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in Criminal Case No. 604/1989; and, while maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 411 IPC, reduced the sentence from 1 year's simple imprisonment to that of 6 months' simple imprisonment.

(2.) THE accused -petitioner was tried for the offence under Section 379 IPC when charge -sheet was filed after investigation on the FIR lodged by the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department (Mechanical Division), Jaisalmer on 01 .08.1989 with the allegations that certain parts of the tankers that were in the charge of his Junior Engineer were found stolen. After framing of the charge, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced the relevant documentary evidence. The petitioner, in the plea recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and, while submitting that he was falsely implicated for having taken part in agitation relating to murder of one Karnaram, examined 2 witnesses in support of his case.

(3.) IT has been argued on behalf of the accused -petitioner in this revision petition that the learned Courts below have acted wholly illegally in returning the finding of guilt against the petitioner without any legal evidence being available on record so as to connect him with the articles in question; and recovery having not been proved by the motbirs and even the test identification parade on the articles having not been carried out, and the articles allegedly recovered having not been exhibited, there was no basis for the learned Courts below to reach to the conclusion that the articles recovered were the same one that had been stolen. It is further submitted that the accused petitioner has faced this case for last about 21 years and no useful purpose would be served by sending him to imprisonment at this length of time. The learned Public Prosecutor has duly supported the impugned order.