IMPORTANT POINT
An order of conviction cannot be sustained by the appellate Court if the Investigation Officer has tried to concoct the case and "either recorded a proper FIR nor made proper discoveries of the stolen goods.

JUDGMENT

B.C. Verma J. - The appellant Santosh Kumar appeals against his conviction under sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code for which he has been sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment.

2. Mangiyabai (P.W. 1) an old -lady with rather a weak eye-sight with some ornaments on her person was intervened at about 8.30 a.m. on 16.7.1982 when she was proceeding on the main road near Barela in Jabalpur district. She was assaulted and her ornaments were taken away. The appellant, a shepherd-boy was chased, caught and brought back to Mungiyabai. Meanwhile, on receiving intimation police reached on the spot and arrested the appel1ant. Mungiyabai is said to have lodged the first information report which is Ex. P- I and was recorded by Bakhat Singh (P.W. 8) Dr. Tejkishan Mota (P.W.3) examined Mungiyabai. The injury reports are Ex; s P/5 and P/6. From 'the appellant Balua is seized vide Ex, P/7. He is also said to have discovered certain ornaments which were seized vide Ex. P 19. These ornaments, belong to Mungiyabai (P.W.1). Besides Mungiyabai, Purshottam (P.W.4) and Jagrupram (P.W.5) have been examined as eye-witnesses.

3. The prosecution attributed the robbery to the appellant. It is he who is al1eged to have first talked to Mungiyabai and later when she went a little further on the road, the appellant is said to have assaulted her with Bollia and snatched ornaments from body. She cried at which Purshottam reached the spot. Appellant is said to have run away, was chased and caught. He was brought to injured Mungiyabai who identified him as the person who beat her and robbed her of her ornaments. The police then proceeded to formal investigation and first information report (Ex. P/I) was recorded by Bakhat Singh (P.W.8). Appellant is then alleged to have made discoveries of the ornaments. All these accusations have been accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who after trial has convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.

4. It is no doubt amply proved that someone assaulted Mungiyabai on the way and robbed her of her ornaments which were later seized and identified by her. This part of the story was not even questioned by the learned counsel for the appellant. Mungiyabai (P.W. 1) is duly corroborated in this behalf by Purshottam (P.W.4). That she received injuries is also proved by Dr. Tejkishan Mota. (P.W.3). The identity of the person so snatching and looting Mungiyabai was seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant who was also very critical about the conduct of the Investigating officer Bakhat Singh (P.W. 8). In my opinion the 'submissions so made have substance.

5. Mungiyabai (P.W. 1) deposed that while she was walking along the road, the appellant wanted to know where she was going. He then is said to have assaulted from behind. Two blows were struck on the head and she fell down unconseious. The appel1ant then took out ornaments from her person. The appellant had to make effort in taking Todal from her feet and she received injury in her leg during that process. She raised cries and uttered.

People gathered and chased the appellant, who was caught at some distance. The appellant was brought back to her. The ornaments were with the appellant. Police arrived in the village and she narrated the incident. Ex P-1 report was lodged by her In cross-examination she stated that her son-in-law and one Jagrupram Choubey (P.W. 5) had gone to the police station. The ornaments reached her back before the arrival of the police. In the next breath she said that the ornaments remained with the persons who captured the appel1ant. She deposes that she went to the police station from the spot of incident only. She admitted that when she saw the appellant for the first time, he was sitting at a place watching his goat and sheep which were grazing there. She also admitted that her eye-sight had gone weak. She also admitted that she and the appellant never came face to face."

She further deposed that sh