JETHIYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 26-7-1954 whereby the appellants Jethiya and Motiya have been convicted Under Sections 392 and 323 respectively. Jethiya has been sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment while Motiya has beea awarded 6 months' rigorous imprisonments

(2.) THE prosecution case against the appellants was that on the morning of 21-11-1951, one Khiya son of Raju Vishnoi resident of Matora was going home from Pokarwali Nudi. At that time, three persons viz. , the two appellants and one Nawaha beat him with lathis saying that he was grazing his cattle in the field of Kirta jat. It was further alleged against them that alter Khiya had fallen on the ground, Motiya appellant caught hold of his hands and Jethiya and Navalia removed the tw6 golden Murkis which he was wearing in his ears. Motiya appellant also snatched from nis possession one Bhakla and then all the three appellants ran away from that place because two persons Kana and Bhagawana came to the site, being attracted by Khiva's cries.

(3.) THE first information report about this occurrence was lodged by Khiya nimself at the Police Station, Bapini on 23-11-51 at 7 p. rn. According to the prosecution, the stolen gold Murkis and Bhakla were recovered at the instance of the appellant Jethiya from his sheep-yard and field respectively. All the three accused (Jethiya, Motiya and Navalia) were ehallaned by the police for offences Under Sections 392 and 397, IPC in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phalodi. Navalia died during the pendency of the inquiry in the court of the committing Magistrate. Jethiya and Motiya were committed to the court of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The learned Sessions Judge has found that Motiya had taken part simply in beating Khiya and, therefore, he has been convicted Under Section 323, IPC only. Against Jethiya it has been found that he also robbed Khiya of his gold Murkis and Bhakla and, therefore, he has been convicted Under Section 392, IPC Both the appellants had denied all knowledge of the occurrence in the trial court. Their defence was that Khiya had enmity with them and, therefore, they have been falsely involved in the crime. Jethiya had also denied the recovery of the stolen property from his possession. One witness was produced in defence to prove that Khiya and Jethiya were on inimical terms. The learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the defence witness.