Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Gannu @ Ganesh on 5 November, 2015
M.Cr.C.No.9395/2015
- 1 -
M.Cr.C.No.9395/2015
5.11.2015 Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
State/applicant.
Shri Anand Chourasiya, counsel for the
respondents.
Heard on I.A.No.13095/2015, an application for condonation of delay in filing the present leave application.
After considering the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 3 days in filing the present leave application has satisfactorily explained and therefore, application is allowed.
Delay of 3 days in filing the present leave application is hereby condoned.
Heard on leave application.
The applicant has preferred the present leave application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 31.1.2015 passed by the third Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla in S.T.No.122/2014, whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the charges of offence under Section 392/34 of IPC.
The facts of the case, in short, are that, on 27.7.2014, at about 6.30 a.m., the respondents robbed the complainant Rashi Jain (P.W.2) at Railways Colony, Nainpur and various ornaments M.Cr.C.No.9395/2015
- 2 -
were taken from her. It was alleged that one of the culprits was held by the witnesses and he was taken to the police station. However, FIR was registered on 30.7.2014. The police got identification of the respondents and identification memo, Ex.P/2 was recorded. Various ornaments were recovered from the respondents and those were identified by the complainant Rashi Jain. After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
Rashi Jain (P.W.2) has accepted in para 5 of her statement that she identified all the culprits at Police Station Nainpur. If identification proceedings were held after showing the respondents to the complainant at Police Station then, identification proceedings Ex.P/2 has no evidentiary value in the case. Similarly, Rashi Jain (P.W.2) and ASI Shri Hitesh Bhalewar (P.W.7) have accepted that all the ornaments were shown to the complainant at Police Station and therefore, no legal procedure was followed by ASI Shri Bhalewar for getting the identification of the recovered property. Hence, identification memo, Ex.P/19 has no evidentiary value.
It was alleged by Rashi Jain (P.W.2) and Manish Jain (P.W.3) that out of 3 culprits, one was M.Cr.C.No.9395/2015
- 3 -
caught red handed and handed over to the police but, according to these witnesses, the incident took place on 27.7.2014, whereas two accused persons were arrested on 30.7.2014 and one Harendra was arrested on 1.8.2014. FIR was lodged with delay of 3 days. It was not mentioned in the FIR that one person was caught red handed and he was produced before the police. Under these circumstances, the testimony of Rashi Jain and Manish Jain cannot be accepted that one of the accused was caught red handed.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution could not establish that one of the accused was arrested red handed. It was not proved that the respondents were identified in a legal manner or any robbed property has been recovered from the respondents. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charges of offence under Section 392 of IPC. There is no illegality or perversity visible in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, so that any interference can be done by this Court in appeal. If appeal is permitted to be filed then, it may not succeed. There is no reason to grant leave to appeal. Consequently, leave application is hereby dismissed.
M.Cr.C.No.9395/2015- 4 -
Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra