The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for primary evidence from the person who identifies stolen articles, and the inadequacy of relying solely on corroborative evidence from other witnesses or persons who conducted the identification proceedings.

( 1 ) THE applicants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10-10-1995 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1995 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh camp Kawardha confirming the judgment of conviction dated 12-6-1995 passed in Criminal Case No. 420 of 1994 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha convicting the applicants under Section 457, I. P. C. and sentencing them to undergo R. I. for one year and pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo S. I. for twenty days and further convicting them under Section 318 (378), I. P. C. and sentencing them to undergo R. I. for six months and pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo twenty days simple imprisonment, have filed this revision petition.

( 2 ) ). The prosecution case in brief is that on 10-2-1990 one Ashok Kumar lodged a report at Police Station Sahaspur Lohara that certain cash and two Sarees were stolen from his hotel. On the information the police registered crime No. 20/90. During the course of investigation a sum of Rs. 37. 40 was recovered from accused applicant Chaitu, and, from possession of applicant Santu two cotton sarees, one plastic bag and one rod were recovered. The said Sarees were put for identification and according to the prosecution the Sarees were rightly identified by the complainant. The prosecution agency recorded the statements of the witnesses and on completion of the investigation submitted the challan. The accused persons were put to trial as they had denied the commission of the offence. The trial Court convicted the applicants and as the appeal proved infructuous these two persons have come to this Court.

( 3 ) ). Shri Ashish Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the applicants, submits that the statements of PW-1 Ashok Kumar the original complainant, it would not appear that he had identified the Sarees. He submits that unless the person to whom the articles belong identifies the articles in a duly constituted identification proceedings, the statements of the other witnesses that the complainant did identify the articles would not provide legal evidence or a legal foundation to record a finding against the applicants. He further submits that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and as the details of the cash amount were not given in the first information report the recovery of the cash money which is otherwise unidentifiable cannot connect the applicant Chaitu with the alleged crime.

( 4 ) ). Opposing the arguments Shri Praful Bharat, learned Counsel for the State, submits that from the statements of PW-4 Suresh it would clearly appear that the identification proceeedings were conducted by him and in his presence the original complainant PW-1 Ashok Kumar had identified the articles. He submits that these two applicants were found roaming here and there near the hotel and as the recovery of incriminating articles were made from the Courts below were justified in convicting the applicants.

( 5 ) ). I have gone through the complete records and have heard the parties at length.

( 6 ) ). PW-1 Ashok Kumar in his statements before the Court has simply said that he knew the accused persons. After closing the shop he had put the lock on the doors. The next morning he found that the lock was broken, an amount of Rs. 37. 40 was stolen and the two Sarees were also missing. He further stated that he lodged the report (Ex. P/1) at the police station. I do not know as to why the prosecution did not enquire from this witness or put any questions relating to the identification proceedings. What I have referred to above is the sum total of the statements in the examination in chief. The witness nowhere says that he was called in the identification proceedings or he had identified the said Sarees allegedly recovered from the possession of accused Santu.

( 7 ) ). PW-2 Ataldas did support the prosecution case by saying that from accused Chaitu 37. 40 cash