KISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were accused on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sirohi bearing No. 72/2001 (old 74/2000). Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sirohi vide judgment dated September 4, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellant Kishan Lal under Sec. 394/34 and 75 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and fine of Rs.4,000.00 in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight months and the appellant Ramesh Kumar under Sec. 394/397 and 75 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.5,000.00 in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year

(2.) As per prosecution story the injured Raju Soni (Pw. 1) submitted the written report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Shivganj stating therein that on June 24, 2000 he was going to his shop by scooter No. RJ24/1 M/7002 having a chained- bag containing golden and silver ornaments in white packet along with the cash of shop. At the Chauraha before the Chhavani-chauraha Kishan Soni stopped him and told something about his brother, meanwhile the friend of Kishan Soni Ramesh Harijan came and at the point of Kishan, Ramesh gave a blow on his head and after snatching his bag and scooter fled away towards Sumerpur. The scooter was driven by Kishan Lal and the bag of ornaments was with Ramesh. He was taken to hospital by Paras Bhai and Kiran Soni. The police registered FIR No. 83/2000 under Sec. 394 IPC and investigation commenced. The appellants were arrested. On completion of investigation the charge sheet came to be filed. In due course the case came up for trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sirohi. Charge under Ss. 397/34 and 75 IPC was framed against the appellant Kishan Lal and Ramesh Kumar was charged for the offence under Ss. 397 and 75 IPC. Lateron the charge was amended and Kishan Lal was charged for the offence under Ss. 394 alternatively 394/34 IPC and Ramesh Kumar under Sec. 394 read with 397 IPC. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as fourteen witnesses. The appellants in their explanation under Sec. 313 Cr.PC. claimed innocence and denied the prosecution case. No witness in defence, was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that the fact of snatching away the bag from Raju has not been established by the i prosecution. As also the recovery of the bag has been effected from an open place assessable to all. The scooter was not recovered from the possession of appellants. The identification of the articles has not conducted properly. The conviction and sentence against the appellants cannot be sustained.