Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21st December, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 1999 whereby, the appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was dismissed. By way of the said appeal, the appellant had challenged the judgment dated 20th October, 1999 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, M.P. in S.T. No. 34 of 1999 whereby, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 394 read with Section 397 of Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.04.19 14:43:09 IST Reason:

Signature Not Verified the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of three months.

3. The substratum of the prosecution story is that on 12th December, 1998 at about 10:30 am, while the complainant Bhagu Bai was proceeding to her field, a person came from behind, closed her eyes, assaulted her with a knife and snatched away the silver anklet, a silver necklace and a silver bracelet which were worn by her. After committing the crime and injuring the complainant in the process, the assailant ran away from the spot. The complainant stated in the First Information Report (FIR) that she was not able to see or identify the assailant.

4. Be that as it may, the appellant was arrested on 14th December, 1998 on the basis of suspicion. It is alleged that upon being interrogated by the police, the accused appellant made a confession/disclosure statement which was recorded as Memorandum (Exhibit P-11). It is further stated that acting on the said disclosure statement, the Investigating Officer(PW-12) recovered the silver articles allegedly looted by the accused after assaulting the complainant. These articles were seized vide panchnama (Exhibit P-12). The prosecution further claimed that the articles so seized at the instance of the accused were got identified at the hands of the complainant before an Executive Magistrate.

5. Charge sheet was filed against the accused appellant for the above offences and the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The accused was charged and tried for the offences mentioned above.

6. At the conclusion of trial, the trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above. The High Court, affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused as recorded by the trial Court and rejected the appeal filed by the accused vide judgment dated 21st December, 2022 which is assailed in this appeal.

7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State.

8. The learned trial Court convicted the appellant by recording the following finding: -

“According to the analysis done by above, it is proved that on the information of the accused, the jewellery looted from complainant was seized, which was seized immediately two days after the incident. Therefore, there is no possibility at all that these ornaments could have come into the possession of the accused in any other way. As a result, it is proved that it was the accused who took away these ornaments from the complainant while assaulting her and robbed of.”

9. It is relevant to mention here that the complainant Bhagu Bai (PW-3) during the course of sworn testimony tried to improve upon her case by identifying the accused in the Court, but the fact remains that such evidence of identification of the accused was not relied upon by the learned trial Court and the High Court and the case was found proved only on the basis of recovery of ornaments.

10. The complainant Bhagu Bai (PW-3) claimed to have identified the ornaments recover