Conviction requires reliable evidence; identification procedures must be substantively corroborated, and the burden of proof lies with prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

Prem Narayan Singh, J.

This judgment shall govern the disposal of these appeals as they are arisen out of same crime of same session trial, hence, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

2. The present appeals have been preferred by the appellants being crestfallen by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.08.2001, passed by learned XVIII Additional Session Judge, District Indore in Sessions Trial No.20/1999, whereby the appellant Vinod has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo 03 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and usual default stipulation while appellant Santosh has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 07 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and usual default stipulation.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 05.08.1998 one Dilip @ Guddu lodged a report stating that when he was sitting at his shop situated in Dwarkapuri (on the main road), Indore some unknown persons had assaulted him and robbed his shop. It is further alleged that at the time of incident Devendra (PW-2) and Bhagirath (PW-3) were also sitting in the shop. On the basis of the said report, the police registered an offence under Section 394 of IPC. Consequently, the police arrested six persons in connection with the said crime and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against them, under Sections 294, 394, 395 read with Section 397 of IPC.

4. The police after following the due procedure, prepared the spot map, recorded the statements of the witnesses, seized the articles, arrested accused persons and recorded their memorandum statements. After due investigation, the police has filed the charge-sheet under Section 394 , 395 read with Section 397 of IPC. The matter was committed to the Court of Sessions and made over to the learned trial Court where upon the charges were framed under Sections 392 read with Section 397 of IPC. The appellants abjured their guilt and took a plea that they have been falsely implicated and prayed for trial.

5. The prosecution on its behalf has examined as many as 10 witnesses namely Dilip Kumar Chouhan, complainant (PW-1), Devendrasingh Chouhan, (PW-2), Gautam (PW-3), Prem Chouhan (PW-4), Kamal, (PW-5), Pushrajsingh, Constable (PW-6), Devkaran, Head Constable (PW-7), Jitnedra Singh Pawar, Nayab Tehsildar (PW- 8), Dr. B.K. Dwivedi, Assistant Surgeon, (PW-9) and Harjeetsingh Sudan, Inspector (PW-10). No witness has been adduced in defence by the appellants.

6. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and argument adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on 29.08.2001 and finally concluded the case and convicted the appellants as per aforementioned para No. 1.

7. Being aggrieved by the order of learned trial Court, the appellants have preferred this criminal appeal stating the fact that the impugned order is against law and facts. The appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that initially FIR got registered on 05.08.1998 as against four unknown persons, of whom no whereabouts were known either to the victim or to the police authorities, thereafter statements of witnesses were recorded on 06.08.1998, which also does not give any lead to the police authorities as to the identity of the accused persons, but surprisingly on 11.08.1998 police arrested five accused persons from Gangwal Bus Stand at about 5:15 AM.

8. The question arises here that, how the police came to k