UMENDRA AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are being decided by this common judgment as both the appeals are directed against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26th August, 2010 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Durg (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 77/2009, whereby the appellants have been held guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below: - -

(2.) ON the basis of the material contained in the charge -sheet, learned Trial Court framed charges against each of the appellants alongwith other accused on 27.07.2009. The appellants were charged of committing offence under Section 395 IPC on the allegations that the appellants had looted gold jewelries valued Rs. 35,000/ - on gun point. The appellants having abjured guilt, they were put to trial. During trial, out of seven accused, two accused namely -Kamlesh Chandravanshi and Raju Nishad absconded. Relying upon the evidence led by the prosecution, learned Trial Court held the two appellants guilty of commission of offence and convicted each of them for commission of offence under Section 395 of IPC and sentenced them as described above. Remaining three accused namely -Bhishmdev, Hemant Sahu and Gopeshwar were acquitted.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the judgment of conviction and sentence and submits that there are no material discrepancy so as to disbelieve the Test Identification Parade and identification of the appellants by Anjana Pathaniya (PW10). He submits that the appellants have also been identified by the victim in the Court. Therefore, the appellants are clearly proved to be involved in commission of offence. It is next contended that in so far as recovery is concerned, the two prosecution witnesses -Mahendra Kumar Ramteke (PW1) and Amrit Lal (PW2) have admitted their signature in seizure memo Ex. P/12 and P/14 by which gold ornaments looted by the appellants and other accused were recovered from the two appellants. The Investigating Officer Mukesh -Khare (PW12), S.D.O. police has proved recovery of gold ornaments from the two appellants which have been duly identified in the presence of the Executive Magistrate by Anjana Pathaniya (PW10). He further submits that the victim who was inside the house has stated about four persons having come inside the house and two witnesses of the prosecution Anup Shrivastava (PW 3) and Mukund Patil (PW6), who were standing outside the house have clearly stated that there were about 6 to 7 persons involved in the commission of offence, therefore, it has been proved that as many as five persons were involved and that offence under Section 395 has been committed. Lastly, learned counsel for the State submits that the offence being grave one and having been committed in the night where the appellants entered the dwelling house and looted gold ornaments from Anjana Pathaniya (PW10) on gun point, the sentences awarded to them also do not warrant any interference.