S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises against the judgment rendered by the assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem, in S. C. No. 73 of 1996 convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each for the offence under Section 395 IPC.

( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution can be stated in brief as follows: on the night of 3-7-1995 P. W. I and his wife, P. W. 2 and Madireddy Swarnasree were sleeping in the varandah of the house. At about mid-night P. W. I got up and found six persons coining towards his house. They came, tied the hands of P. W. I and slapped Anjireddy and broke open the door, entered the house and committed theft of 15,000/-rupees cash, a watch as well as the gold ear studs and nose ring of Gampa anasuya. Similar offence was made in the house of P. W. 3, P. W. 4 and others. On the strength of a complaint given by P. W. 1, Police registered Ex. P-24 FIR. On 31-10-1995 at about 3. 00 p. m. A-l and A-5 were arrested, and on the strength of the confessions said to have been made by A-l and A-5 other accused were arrested and properties were recovered. P. W. I2 conducted the test identification parade in respect of A-l to A- 6 and thereafter the accused were charge- sheeted for the offence under Section 395 ipc. The accused pleaded not guilty for the charge under Section 395 IPC. The prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses. Exs. P-3 to P-6 are the wound certificates. M. Os. l to 6 are the properties recovered. Ex. P-24 is the FIR. Ex. P-21 to Ex. P-23 are test identification proceedings. After trial, the lower Court recorded a finding of guilt for the offence under Section 395 against A-l to A-5 only and convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and acquitted A-6 under Section 309 (1) of Old Cr. P. C. having found him not guilty. Aggrieved by the same, A-2, A-3 and A-4 have preferred this Criminal Appeal.

( 3 ) THE prosecution has based on the eye-witness account given by the injured and the victims as well as the test identification proceedings. It has also relied upon the alleged confessions made which led to recovery of the properties.

( 4 ) THE point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 395 IPC.

( 5 ) THIS case arises under old Cr. P. C. since the offence has been committed in an agency area. Unfortunately, the constitutional mandate under Article 50 of the Constitution of India is not implemented to the agency areas. Time and again, this Court has observed that it is most unfortunate thing that the tribals were given a separate kind of justice which is said to be not suitable for the modern, advanced and civilized society. Article 50 of the Constitution of India reads as follows: article SO. The State shall take steps the separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State. The expression the State in Article 50 has to be construed in the distribute sense as including the Government and Parliament of india and the Government and the Legislature of each State and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of Government of India.

( 6 ) IT is clear from Article 50 of constitution of India, that the mandate has been given by the Constitution to separate the judiciary from the Executive, and see that the people who are tried before the courts do not have apprehension regarding the injustice likely to be caused from the executive influence and the independence of judiciary is an essential attribute of rule of law. In the entire State, this has been implemented, except in agency areas, which is discriminatory. The rational behind it cannot be appreciated. Time has come to have a look at the procedure that is being followed in respect of tribals and non- tribals, in rendering justice. I am unable to find any rational behind it. If a law is ba

Click Here to Read the rest of this document