- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi. J. This is a revision under Section 397 Cr. P. C. directed against the judgment and order dated 22. 3. 96, passed by the learned Sessions Judge Mirzapur, whereby he has dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1995, filed by the revisionists Amar Nath and Ram Surat. That appeal itself arose out of judgment and order dated 4. 5. 1995 passed by 1st A. C. J. M. Mirzapur in Criminal Appeal No. 2397 of 90, State v. Amar Nath and Ram Surai. By virtue of this order learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellants on a charge under Section 380 1. P. C. and sentenced them to undergo 6 month's R. I.
(2.) IN the night of 27/28-1-1987, a theft took place in the house of Mansa Ram Complainant, P. W. 1 After a hot pursuit, at a distance of about 200 paces, the accused Amar Nath and Ram Surat were arrested in the field and from their possession three parats, weighing about 6 kg. valued about Rs. 250/- and one Cuskut Batuloi, weighing about 1 Kg, valued about Rs. 40/- were recovered. Both the accused were brought to the Police Station in the same night and a case was registered. Memos of the recovered articles were also prepared. The accused were lodged in the police lock-up at the Police Station. After usual investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. The prosecution examined (P. W. 1), Mansa Ram, the complainant and (P. W. 2) Budhi Ram both are witnesses of fact. Other documents prepared by the investigating agency, during the course of investigation, were admitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionist. Therefore, further formal evidence was not called upon. The accused in their statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. had denied the allegations and had said that on account of enmity, they have been falsely implicated.
(3.) THE accused led no evidence in defence. After perusal of the entire oral and documentary evidence on the record, the learned Magistrate concluded that the charge under Section 411 I. P. C. was not made out as the accused were arrested in a hot pursuit only, few paces away from the spot. Therefore, the charge under Section 380 I. P. C. only was made out. The accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 411 I. P. C. But they were convicted on the charge under Section 380 and were accordingly sentenced as noted above.;