The presumption of innocence is fundamental; convictions cannot be based on mere suspicion or unproven allegations, requiring robust proof from the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

Prem Narayan Singh, J.

The present appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.09.2022, passed by learned Eight Additional Session Judge, Ujjain in S.T. No.250/2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable U/s 392/397 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and sentenced to undergo 7 years imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, and usual default stipulations.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 26.08.2021 at about 10.30 pm complainant Brijgopal Yadav went to Binnu Badoriya's Pan shop to have some tobacco. At that time, appellant reached the spot, he pointed knife in the neck of the complainant and snatched away seven grams golden chain worth Rs.20,000/- from the complainant. This incident was witnessed by Binnu Badoriya and Bablu Mechanic. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged against by complainant.

3. The police after following the due procedure, prepared the spot map, recorded the statements of the witnesses, seized the articles, arrested the accused person and after due investigation filed the charge-sheet under Section 392 of IPC. The matter was committed to the Court of Sessions where upon the charges were framed under Sections 392 /397 of IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and took a plea that he has been falsely implicated and prayed for trial.

4. The prosecution on its behalf has examined as many as 15 witnesses namely Raghunath Singh (PW-1), Brijgopal Yadav (PW-2), Abhishek Jain (PW-3), Prem Malviya (PW-4), Rinku Soni (PW-5), Jhakir @ Bablu (PW-6). No witness has been adduced in defence by the appellants.

5. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and argument adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on 10.09.2022 and finally concluded the case and convicted the appellant for commission of the said offence under the provisions of Sections 392 /397 of IPC.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of learned trial Court, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal stating the fact that the impugned order is against law and facts. The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The eye witnesses Raghunath Singh, Binnu Mechanic and Zakir @ Bablu had declined to support the prosecution case. The said incident happened on 26.08.2021 at 10.30 pm while FIR was lodged belatedly on 27.08.2021. There were earlier disputes between the complainant and applicant due to this disputes appellant was foisted in this false case. The weight of the seized chain is different from the actual weight of stolen chain. Identification of said chain was vitiated because it was conducted in presence of police witnesses. The independent witness Abhishek Jain has not supported the seizure memo. There are omissions and contradictions in the statement of eye witnesses and police witnesses. As such the trial Court has erred in passing the order of conviction and therefore, counsel prays for setting aside the impugned judgment.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent opposing the contentions submitted that the judgment of learned trial Court has been passed after proper appreciation of evidence, hence, it does not deserve any interference. So also looking to the heinousness of the offence punishment is also not warranting any interference. Finally, learned Govt. Advocate bearing out the finding of the learned trial Court requested to dismiss the appeal.

8. In the back drop of the rival contentions, the point of determination is that as to whether the finding of learned trial Court regarding conviction and sentence under Section 392 read with Section 397 is correct in eye