AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This acquittal appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 14-7-2008 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Surguja at Ambikapur,
Sessions Division Surguja in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2007 wherein the said Court acquitted the respondents from the charges under Section 395 of
IPC, 1860.
In the present case, name of the complainant is Santram. It is alleged that on 25-4-2004 at about 10.00 pm , 7 -8 persons entered into his house and
by pointing fire arms they committed robbery in his house and removed currency notes valued Rs.600/-.
The case of prosecution is based on test identification parade and identification before the trial Court. First information report was lodged against
unknown persons. As per version of Santram (PW/5), Phulmatiya (PW/1), Sukhmaniya (PW/2), Lalita (PW/3) and Mohanmaniya (PW/4), they
claimed that they may identify the persons who entered into their house at the time of incident.
PW/2 Sukhmaniya deposed that the persons who entered into their house had covered faces of her and her husband and there was no occasion for
her to see the faces of the culprits. She further deposed that at the time of identification, Police Inspector was present. PW/1 Phulmatiya deposed that
she did not identify the accused persons. PW/3 Lalita also did not identify the accused persons. PW/4 Mohanmaniya deposed on same line. PW/14
C.S. Paikra deposed that accused persons were brought by Police and as per version of PW/9 Siddharth Singh, identification chart was kept ready as
per direction of the Police Officer. It has further come on record that accused persons were shown at Police Station Jainagar and at jail of
Baikunthpur prior to identification parade.
Looking to the facts, it was doubtful that witnesses have occasion to see the faces of the culprits and again their identification also suffers from
material irregularity, the trial Court opined that the offence is not proved beyond shadow of doubt.
Looking to the overall assessment of the evidence, we are of the view that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is proper and calls for no
interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.