TUKARAM GANPAT PANDARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An old case of house-breaking, allegedly by five persons, resulted in the acquittal of the 3rd accused by the magistrate and on appeal the 5th accused's guilt also was held not proved. The 2nd accused has appealed against his concurrent conviction while accused Nos. 1 and 4 have resigned themselves to their sentences.

(2.) 40 bundles of copper wire kept in the godown of M/s. Lee and Muirhead (India) Pvt. Ltd. as Sewri in Bombay were admittedly burgled on Sunday, September 25, 1966, in the morning and removed in a lorry of driver Hassan. A4 had hired the lorry, taken a few hammals (head load carriers), loaded the vehicle with the copper wire, the godown watchman being absent, and on its way the lorry was stopped at the weigh bridge where the brokers for sale of the stolen property were also present. The story of the break-in is substantially established and the involvement of Al and A4 is proved. Two of those whose roles were important, according to the prosecution version, have got off in Court. The appellant pleads innocence on the hopeful circumstances of absence of direct evidence connecting him and on the inconclusive probativeness of the sole circumstance found against him of the recovery of the duplicate key of the godown discovered as a result of his statement to the police.

(3.) Mr. V. S. Desai, with pursuasive reasoning, argued that his client was suspected on irrelevant grounds and proof of guilt needed more than the hesitant testimony of possession of a duplicate key after the occurrence, an accessory after the fact, assuming the worst against his client, being no abettor under the Indian law. A few more facts will illumine the lines of argument, the focus being turned only on accused No. 2.