A report was drawn up and the matter taken to police Station Pilibhit where appellant Harish Chandra and Ram Autar were handed over to the police for further action.
Harish Chandra and his companypanions then jumped out of the companypartment, followed by Avinash Kumar P.W. 1 , who found a companystable at the platform and informed him of the incident.
They were both challenged for the companymission of an offence under Section 394 IPC along with three other accused.
No appeal has been filed by the other accused Ram Autar.
It was alleged that, at that time, accused Ram Autar forcibly took away the wrist watch of Avinash Kumar P.W. 1 and when he Avinash Kumar raised an alarm, appellant Harish Chandra slapped him and his other companypanion hit him with a stick.
The watch was seized under memorandum Ex.
Appellant Harish Chandra and his companyaccused, along with some other persons, entered the same Compartment after Avinash Kumar P.W. 1 .
It was alleged that Avinash Kumar P.W. 1 boarded a train at Chakarpur railway station on April 8, 1968 at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. to go to Purnagiri in Pilibhit district.
Avinash Kumar P.W. 1 identified Harish Chandra and Ram Autar as the persons who had robbed him of the wrist watch, and the companystables caught hold of them.
The trial Court companyvicted and sentenced the appellant ands Ram Autar as stated above, but acquitted the remaining accused.
When the train reached railway station Tanakpur at about 9 or 9.30 p.m., some of the travellers started getting down from the companypartment and there was a great rush.
Against that judgment of the High Court dated April 30, 1971, Harish Chandra has preferred the present appeal.
On being taken questioned, appellant Harish Chandra is said to have taken Avinash Kumar and the companystables to a heap of ash lying behind the tea stall and to have taken out the stolen wrist watch from it.
The High Court upheld their companyviction, but reduced the sentence of Ram Autar to two years and of Harish Chandra to one year.
A search was made for the appellant and his companypanions at the platform end, ultimately, both Harish Chandra, and Ram Autar were found near a tea stall, at a short distance from the railway station.
S. Shinghal, J. Appellant Harish Chandra and his companyaccused Ram Autar were companyvicted by the First Temporary Session Judge, Pilibhit, of an offence under Section 392 I.P.C. were sentenced lo rigorous imprisonment for four years.
