CHHOTE KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 1983 also.

(2.) The First Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 9.11-82 passed in Sessions trial No 100 of 1981 convicted two persons namely Chhote Kumar and Bhauram of offences under sections 395 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for seven years for each of the two offences with a direction that the sentences would run concurrently. It is being aggrieved by it that Chhote Kumar has filed the present appeal in this Court. Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 1983 has been similarly filed by accused Bhauram. 2. It was established beyond doubt from the evidence produced in the case that in a dacoity that took place in the house of PW1 Salikram situated in village Kosampali of district Raigarh on the night intervening 2nd and 3rd of April. 1981, the said witness and his wife PW. 2 Dujmati were robbed of Rs. 190/ in cash and a couple of silver and brassorna mens which PW 2 Dujmati had been wearing at the time of the incident. In all, 9 persons including appellants Chhote Kumar and Bhauram Were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge in the above mentioned sessions trial for offences under sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code. One of them namely Jeevanlal was absconding and as such the trial against him could not be completed. Appellants Chhote Kumar and Bhauram were convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge as mentioned above. Rest of them, namely Lamboo alias Bhagatali alias Ramswaroop, Bhawanlal, Ganesh, Om Prakash, Amarnath and Rathlal were acquitted of the offences alleged against them.

(3.) The evidence produced by the prosecution against all the six accused was confined to they having been identified as the culprits by PW.1 Salikram and PW.2 Dujmati in the test identification parades held during the course of investigation. There was no other evidence produced in the case,. connect the said accused with the offences alleged against them. It was for the reason that in their evidence in the Court PW.1 Salikram and PW. 2 Dujmati could identify only two of them, namely appellants Chhote Kumar and Bhauram and failed to identify the rest of them that the appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above and the rest of them were acquitted by the Additional Sessions judge.