SANGA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code is preferred to assail validity, correctness and propriety of the judgment dated 17.6.1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer affirming conviction of sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer under judgment and order dated 27.2.1993. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the judgment aforesaid convicted the accused-petitioner for offence punishable under Section 379 Indian Penal Code. and awarded sentence for six months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of fine one month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) In brief case of the prosecution is that the informant Motilal, Chowkidar with Tehsil Office, Barmer submitted a written report to Station House Officer, Barmer on 10.9.1986 stating therein that in early hours of the morning of the same day two persons came to motor tanker garage on bicycle and one Sangaram, present accused-petitioner, was carrying a jute bag on his bicycle. On opening of the jute bag aforesaid certain articles such as diesel pump, piston and oil pump were recovered. On basis of the information aforesaid a case was lodged against the accused-petitioner and one other person namely Onkar. After regular investigation challan was filed and charge was framed and read over to the accused-persons. To support the prosecution story six witnesses were examined and seven documents were exhibited. Statement of the accused-petitioner as per provisions of Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code too was recorded. The trial Court after examining the entire evidence available on record acquitted Onkar, however, convicted the petitioner and sentenced to undergo 6 month's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/-. The conviction recorded and the sentence awarded was affirmed by the appellate Court.

(3.) The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner to assail validity, correctness and propriety of the orders impugned is that no adequate evidence is available on record to establish the theft alleged. It is asserted that as a matter of fact whatever evidence available on record, that at the most proves possession of certain articles by the accused-petitioner Sanga Ram but the factum of theft has not been established.