JAS RAJ CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi dated June 30, 1977 whereby the learned lower court has acquitted accused Derawar of the offence under Sections 457 and 380/511 IPC.
(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that; on 28 -8 -1971; Tejaram lodged a report at Police Station, Sangad in District Jaisalmer to the effect that in the night intervening between 26th and 27th of August, 1971 at about 1 a.m., one thief entered his house. His wife was sleeping in the Chowk of the house along with her kids and her niece Mst. Shanti. She took of her golden Timaniya weighing about 4 tolas and hanged it on the leg of the cot. The accused tried to take away that Timaniya, whereupon, she woke up and enquired from the accused as to who he is? His wife than cried for help and called Girdhari for help. It is alleged that at that time, complainant Tejaram was serving in the Munsif Court Jaisalmer and he was informed by his wife to come home immediately as she was ill. As soon as he came to his home, he was informed that the man, who entered her house, was to the best of her knowledge Derawar Meghwal, who was working as peon in Ayurvedik Aushdhalaya. This man was not traceable in the village after the occurrence and, therefore, the complainant has submitted that this accused alone has committed this offence. On his report, a case under Sections 457 and 380 IPC was registered. After investigation, the case against the accused was challaned under Sections 457 and 380/511 IPC. The charges were framed against the accused. He did not plead guilty to the charges and claimed trial where upon the prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. He examined 4 witnesses in his defence. After hearing the parties, the learned lower court acquitted the accused of the above said offence. Hence, the State has preferred this appeal against his acquittal.
(3.) I have heard Mr. S.K. Mathur, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. H.C. Mathur, learned Amicus Curiie for the accused -respondent. I have carefully gone through the record of the case.;