The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the reliability of identification evidence.

Judgment :

(Rajani Dubey, J.)

The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.5.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in ST No.H-02/2021 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.10.2020 at around 13:30 hours some unknown person illegally entered the house of complainant Nirmala with intention to commit loot on the threat of life. Seeing him, the complainant got afraid and when she asked about his identity, he demanded money on the point of knife. He snatched Rs.2000/- from her purse and demanded more money. During this process, he assaulted on her with knife as a result of which fingers of both her hands got cut. The assailant also suffered cut injury in his hand. However, on her raising alarm, he fled from there. Based on this report, offence under Sections 394, 450 and 506 of IPC was registered against unknown person. The complainant was got medically examined, bloodstains from the place of occurrence were seized and spot map was prepared. During investigation, the accused/appellant was arrested and on his memorandum, the clothes worn by him at the time of incident, cash of Rs.2000/-, knife and motorcycle used in commission of crime were seized and he too was subjected to medical examination. The seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination. After completion of necessary investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 394, 450, 506, 397 and 398 of IPC.

03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 450, 397, 394 and 506 Part-II of IPC against the accused which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by him in defence.

04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. Learned trial court ought to have appreciated the fact that the complainant in her cross-examination admitted that the person who entered her house had covered his face with scarf and his face was not identifiable. She also admitted that she could identify the accused/appellant as the police had showed her photographs of the accused. Thus, identification of the accused is very much doubtful in this case. Further, seizure of knife and cash of Rs.2000/- is also not significant because knife is a common article found in every household and the amount recovered is also not so much as to connect the accused with the crime in question. The statements of the prosecution witnesses also suffer from the vice of contradiction and omission. The prosecution has failed to prove its case based on the evidence adduced by it and therefore, the findings of guilt recorded by the trial Court are liable to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges.

06. On the othe