The unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence presented by the prosecution is crucial in affirming a conviction and sentencing.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC has been preferred by the appellant Jabid @ Gholu S/o Shabir Ahmed being aggrieved of the judgment dated 12.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur in Sessions Case No.115/2018, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein-below.

3. Pannaram (P.W.3), the first informant, lodged a written report (Ex.P/4) at the Police Station Sadar, Nagaur on 03.06.2018 alleging inter alia that on that day, he had gone for labour work. At around 1.30-1.40 p.m., an unknown man about 5-51/2 feet height wearing a black coloured t-shirt and a brown pant came around to his house on a CD Delux motorcycle and knocked on the door. At that time, the informant's wife Jashoda and their son Rakesh were sleeping. The informant's wife opened the door and the main requested some water to drink and therefore, responding to the man's request, she went inside to get the same. As soon as she turned to go in, the unknown man rushed into the house, pushed the lady down on the ground and snatched her Bor, Tiddipalka and earrings. He was holding a knife and was continuously threatening her in a sinister tone that if she shouted, she would be killed. The assailant after snatching all her ornaments, made an escape on the motorcycle. The informant's wife rushed to the neighbours and told them of her plight. They then called the informant on mobile and apprised him of the incident. On the basis of this report, FIR No.89/2018 (Ex.P/5) came to be registered against the appellant for the offences under Sections 379 and 382 IPC.

4. The appellant was apprehended on 06.07.2018 vide arrest memo Ex.P/7 and was kept Baparda. He gave voluntary information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/12) to the Investigating Officer. Acting in furtherance thereof, a Tiddipalka (Kollar) and a Bor made of gold-like metal were recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P/9. The accused himself was subjected to test identification at the hands of the complainant's wife Smt. Jasoda (P.W.1). She correctly identified him from amongst other persons put up for identification.

5. After concluding investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant herein for the offences under Sections 454, 382 and 398 IPC. As the offence under Section 398 IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur. Charges were framed against the appellant for the above offence. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses in support of its case. Upon being examined under Section 313 CrPC and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, the appellant denied the same and claimed to be innocent, but did not lead any evidence in defence.

7. After hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above. Hence this appeal.

8. Mr. Naman Mohnot, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court is absolutely unjustified. The identification of the appellant by the complainant is defective and unreliable. The recoveries of the ornaments are fabricated. On these submissions, Mr. Mohnot sought acceptanc