- (1.) THE petitioner, Ajay Pandey, was arrayed as 1st accused along with Brajesh Singh and Arun Kumar Sharma who were arrayed as 2nd and 3rd accused respectively before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro and were charged under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution against the petitioner as well as other accused is that at about 4.30 p.m. on 13.12.2000, while the informant, Prabhat Kumar, PW 3 was travelling in his motorcycle, the petitioner and another person took away his motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR -1 -D 2216 and also snatched a purse containing Rs. 500/ - after showing a pistol. The trial Court, on the evidence ad - duced, convicted the petitioner and other accused under Section 392, IPC for which the petitioner was sentenced three years R.I. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default, two months simple imprisonment. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed. The present revision is against the said order of conviction and sentence. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that at about 4.30 p.m., the informant, Prabhat Kumar, PW 3 was travelling in a motorcycle from Bokaro to Kalyani and when he was near Balidih, three unknown persons way -laid him and showed knife and pistol and that thereafter they took his purse containing Rs. 500/ -. A compliant was lodged by the complainant to PW 4, ' the Investigating Officer at Pindrajora P.S. which was registered as case No/ 152/2000. The investigation was taken up and during course of investigation, Arun Kumar Sharma and Brajesh Singh were arrested on 3.2.2001. Tney gave statement and thereafter they were sent to Court for remand. The petitioner was later arrested and after completion of investigation the final report was filed against the petitioner and another accused as Brajesh Singh was absconding.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the Courts below were not justified in finding the petitioner guilty as there is absolutely no legal evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime since, according to him, no incriminating material was seized from the possession of the petitioner and that the Courts below were not justified in relying upon the statement of the co - accused to implicate the petitioner in the crime. On the above contention I have heard counsel appearing for the vState.;