Dilip Kumar vs State of U.P.

R. A. Misra, J.—Accused Dilip Kumar has preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 11081 passed by Sri B. L. Sachdeva, VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Lucknow whereby accusedrevisionist has been convicted and sentenced for a period of 11/2 years'' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500.

According to the prosecution the revisionist Dilip Kumar along with Pradeep Kumar robbed Suit. Gayatri Devi of her golden chain at about 8.30 p. m. on 15477 in Mohalla Rajendra Nagar while she was going along with her son Mahendra Nath Rastogi. On the alarm raised by the victim, Vishwanath, PW 5 and Lal Singh, PW 3 reached the scene of occurrence. Accused made good their escape leaving one Avon Cycle No. C 424106 bearing token No. 1240 of the Lucknow Corporation and one pair of Chappals. Accused were seen by the witnesses in the light of the electric bulb on the btrcet pole. The written report of the occurrence was lodged by Mahendra Nath Rastogi at 9.45 p. m. the same day and Cycle and Chappals were deposited at the Police Station. Shitla Prasad Singh, PW 7 investigated the case and arrested accused Dilip Kumar. Accused was put up for identification in the District Jail, Lucknow on 30677. The accusedrevisionist was correctly identified by Sri Mahendra Nath Rastogi. Investigating Officer took the register from the Cycle hiring shop of Abdul Rashid on 23477 which bears an entry indicating that the Cycle left on the spot was taken by accused Dilip Kumar on hire from that shop on 15477 at 11.30 a. m.

Prosecution has failed to produce Abdul Rashid to prove that the cycle recovered on the spot was taken by Dilip Kumar on hire from his shop. On 15477 at 11.30 a. m. the register which was taken by the Investigating Officer from the shop has neither been produced nor proved before the court below. In the result, there is no evidence worth the name on the record to show that the cycle recovered on the spot was taken on hire by accusedrevisionist, Dilip Kumar on 15487 at 11.30 a. m. from the shop of Abdul Rashid.

This leaves us with the single identification of Mahendra Nath Rastogi, PW 1 who swears to have correctly identified the accused Dilip Kumar in the test identification proceedings and further swears to have seen him committing the robbery. There being no other evidence it is not at all possible to place absolute reliance on a single testidentification and convict the accused on the basis of a single identification. Both the courts below have grievously erred in convicting the revisionist on the basis of a single identification. The conviction and sentence passed against the accusedrevisionist Dilip Kumar on the basis of a single identification is wholly illegal shall, therefore, be set aside.

Revision is allowed. Conviction and sentence passed against accused Dilip Kumar under Section 392, IPC is setaside. He is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He need not surrender. Fine if paid shall be refunded forthwith.

Revision allowed.