- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. Accused Pitam alias Putua and Babu Lal have been con victed on a charge under Section 412, I. P. C. by the IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Fateh-pur, vide his judgment and order, dated 19. 2. 1979 parsed in S. T. No. 265/76, State v. Rameshwar and 5 others. They have been sentenced to undergo 3 years R. I.
(2.) A dacoity was committed on 12. 9. 1974 at about 10 p. m. at the house of Jangli and others. Apart from other looted properties, one Baja given at serial No. 1 belonging to Jangli in the FIR and one Harmonium house of the complainant. The FIR was lodged on 13 negotiating a distance of 8 miles. The accused were course, they were arrested by the police, put up for challenged. Accused Rameshwar, Siya Ram, Ganga charged under Section 395, I. P. C. The court acquitted benefit of doubt. However, the accused Pitam alias P were convicted on the charge under Section 412,i. P. C. noted above. According to the prosecution, a transistor was recovered from the possession of Babu Lal on 13. 11. 1978 by the police in presence of the two public witnesses, namely Naresh Prasad and Pyare Lal. On the same day a Harmonium was recovered from the possession of accused Pitam (Paper Nos. 17 and 18 in the paper book ). They were put up for test identification parade before the Magistrate (Paper No. 25) in the paper book) and were identified by the witnesses. On that basis two appellants have been convicted. It is relevant to note that Public witness Naresh Prasad PW8 and Pyarey Lal PW 9 during the course of their examination before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge denied the arrest of the accused-appellants before them. They also denied the recovery of the looted properties from them. However they admitted their signatures on the recovery memos, exhibit Ka-10 and Ka-11. They further stated that their signatures had been obtained on the recovery memos at the police station. Then the court was left with the only and solitary witness Inspector Basudeo Sahai, who had allegedly made recoveries. Relying upon the rulings of this Court as well as Supreme Court to the effect that the police witness statement was sufficient for conviction, learned Addl Sessions Judge recorded the conviction as noted above.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the accused have come to this Court in the present appeal. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at stretch and gone through the record. I find that there is much force in this appeal and it deserves to be allowed.;