Order on Board

24.08.2022

1. As no one appeared on behalf of the applicant on 22.08.2022 & on

23.08.2022, therefore, this Court requested Ms. Samiksha Gupta, Advocate to appear on behalf of the applicant to assist the Court, today this case has been taken up for final hearing.

2. The applicant has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District- Koria (C.G.) passed in Criminal Appeal No. 63/2010 on 7-7-2010 whereby the learned Appellate Court affirmed the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 305/2009 ‘State of CG Vs. Guruvachan Singh & Anr.’ Dated 31.03.2010. The applicant was convicted by the trial Court under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 20 days.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant Bifnandan Ram Khalkho who was working on the post of Assistant Grade-II in the office of Women & Child Development Project Office, Manendragarh, parked his motorcycle bearing registration No. MP-18- BA-5503 in-front of his office on 25.5.2001 and when he came out at about 3 pm, found his bike missing. He lodged FIR in the police station Manendragarh and Crime No. 279/2009 was registered against the unknown person for offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. During investigation, the police arrested the present applicant and co-

accused namely Akhilendra @ Babloo. Memorandum statement U/s. 27 of Evidence Act was recorded, thereafter, the vehicle was seized from the house of one Prakash Agrawal. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the present applicant and co-accused.

4. The learned trial Court framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC against the applicant and co-accused. Both the accused have abjured the charges and pleaded non-guilty. The prosecution examined five witnesses and exhibited seven documents to prove the guilt of the present applicant and co-accused.

5. The learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence convicted the applicant and co-accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 1-1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000-1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount further 20-20 days R.I.

6. Only present applicant had preferred appeal before the learned Sessions Court and same was registered as criminal appeal No. 63/2010 and vide judgment dated 07-07-2010 and the same was dismissed affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR was registered on 25.5.2009, the memorandum of the applicant was recorded on 18- 8-2009 but the prosecution has not produced any document or any evidence to connect the present applicant with the crime. On the basis of the memorandum recorded on 18-8-2009 police registered the offence against the present applicant and co-accused. She further submits that the vehicle was seized from the house of one Prakash Agrawal and he has not been examined. His address is also not mentioned in the entire charge-sheet and the place from where the motorcycle was seized, is also not disclosed by the prosecution. The FIR was registered against unknown person, the seizure witness has not supported the case, and therefore, the entire investigation conducted by the prosecution is doubtful. She further argued that at the time of incident the applicant was aged about 29 years and incident took place in the year 2001 and after long 20 years it would not be appropriate to send the applicant in jail for serving remaining jail sentence, as such, she prayed for acquittal of the present applicant.

8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the vehicle was seized at the instance of applicant from possession of one Prakash Agrawal and thus the prosecution has proved the ingredients