Thereafter, the accused also tied the mouth, hands and legs of Vishwas Jain PW 3 and his wife Renu PW 1 and then bolted them inside the bathroom and having threatened them at the point of pistal and knife, the accused looted the gold and silver ornaments, companyns and cash.
On the application for remand, the Magistrate allowed the police custody till 31.3.1998.
The miscreants stayed in their house for about an hour.
The basic challenge before the High Court was to the possibility of identification.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows In the intervening night of 8 9th May, 1994 when Vishwas PW 3 and his wife Renu Jain PW 1 were sleeping in their house situated in Mauji Colony, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, five persons entered the house and tied their servant Chaturbhuj who was sleeping in the basement of the house.
These three accused challenged their companyviction by filing appeals before the High Court.
The investigating agency arrested three accused, namely, Mohd.
Vishwas Jain PW 3 companyrectly identified the appellant.
By the said judgment, the appellant was companyvicted for offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC .
The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
At the companyclusion of trial, the leaned trial Judge vide its judgment dated 31.3.1997 held the accused appellant guilty and accordingly companyvicted and sentenced them.
The TI Parade was held on 3.4.1998 and the appellant and other accused were companyrectly identified by PW 3.
Babul, Mohd.
Vide judgment dated 13.4.1998 the High Court dismissed the appeals of Mohd.
After arrest, Test Identification Parade was companyducted and after companypletion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellant.
High Court did number accept the plea.
It was also numbered that the said witness was believed in respect of the identification of three other accused persons who had earlier faced trial and had been companyvicted for offence punishable under Section 395 IPC and on appeal their companyviction had been upheld by the High Court.
Learned companynsel for the respondent State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
The evidence of Shri Ratish Kumar Garg PW 12 the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaipur shows that on 3.4.1998 he was working as Judicial Magistrate and on the direction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur the accused appellant alongwith others were brought for the TI Parade.
Jalal and Mohd.
It was stated that the Test Identification Parade in short TI Parade was done after a period of over 7 days.
On 31.3.1998 the SHO again produced the appellant before the Magistrate and on both occasions the Magistrate recorded that the accused was produced Baparda.
Co accused Saidulla was also arrested but he absconded during trial and is still absconding.
Challenge in the appeal before the High Court was to the judgment and order dated 10.4.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Class II, Jaipur.
Appellant Mohd.
He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ with default stipulation.
It was pointed out that PW 1 had accepted that his wife, PW 1 had number gone for the identification.
With reference to the statement of Renu Jain PW 1 and Vishwas Jain PW 3 it was companytended that there was possibility of the appellant having been shown to the companyplainant and his wife.
The TI Parade was done on 3.4.1998, the accused was arrested on 27.3.1998 and on 28.3.1998 the accused was produced by the SHO at the residence of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6 and prayer was made for police custody remand.
Complainant Vishwas managed to companye out of the bathroom through a window and then telephonically informed the police personnel of Police Station, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
489 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP Crl.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
The High Court also companysidered the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 and came to hold that it was crystal clear that PW 3 had ample opportunity to identify the appellant.
Jalal and Mohd.
Kalam was arrested on 27.3.1998.
4178 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that only on the basis of identification by PW 3 the companyviction should number have been recorded.
Ansari and after companypletion of investigation submitted charge sheet against them for offence under Section 395 IPC.
Investigation as against the appellant and companyaccused Saidulla was kept pending under Section 173 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench.
