The lack of unflinching evidence and the tainted and invented recovery can lead to the acquittal of the accused.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 17.9.2019, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, upon Sessions Case No. CS 345/2018. Through the verdict (supra), the learned trial Judge concerned, convicted the accused for a charge drawn against him, for the offences punishable under Section 379-B, and, under Section 411 of the IPC. Moreover, vide a separate sentencing order, drawn on 19.3.2019, the learned trial Court, proceeded to impose the hereinafter extracted sentence(s) of imprisonment, and, also sentences of fine, upon the convict-accused.

2. The genesis of the prosecution case becomes encapsulated in the appeal FIR, to which Ex. P-3 is assigned, wherein it is alleged that on 26.6.2018, complainant Sanjanpreet Kaur has moved an application before the police officials of police station Division No. 4, Jalandhar to the effect that on 26.2.2018, she along with her mother-in-law was returning from Bazar to their home on rickshaw. It has further been alleged that when she was alighting from the richshaw, one person came on motorcycle and snatched her purse containing Rs. 6000/- and ATM card. Upon this complaint, the present case was registered. The investigation was initiated. It has been further alleged that the present accused was arrested by the police in case FIR No. 57 dated 19.3.2018, under Sections 379-B, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar and during interrogation, the accused Pardeep Singh has suffered the disclosure statement with regard to commission of offence in the present case and has got recovered Rs. 150/- out of the snatched currency notes in pursuance of his confessional/disclosure statement from the PUDA building, situated in front of Punjab Kesri Newspaper, which were taken into police possession vide separate recovery memo. Thereafter, after completion of investigation and after presentation of challan, the present accused was put to trial for the aforesaid offences under Section 379-B, 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. After completing the investigations into the petition FIR, the investigating officer concerned, proceeded to institute a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned trial Court concerned.

4. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, proceeded to draw charges against the accused, for offences punishable under Sections 379-B, 411 of the IPC.

5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, concerned, though put the charges to the accused, but he pleaded not guilty, and, claimed trial. Consequently, he entered, upon trial of the charges qua FIR (supra), drawn against the accused, and, after completion of recording of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, he also drew proceedings, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., but thereins, the accused claimed false implication, and, pleaded innocence. Though, the accused claimed the granting of leave to him, for leading defence evidence, but the above granted leave never became availed by him. Therefore, as above stated, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, drew the above verdict of conviction, and, also drew the consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), against the accused.

6. The identity of the appellant was unknown to the complainant, but after the appellant becoming arrested by the police, he became identified at the police station, by the informant, and, in respect whereof identification memos Ex. P-7, and,