RAJESHKUMAR BABULAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Arfan Sait for the appellant and Shri Pravin Singal for the prosecution. Both of them have been heard in contexts with the judgment assailed, and the evidence on recorded referred to.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in brief is that P. W. Subhash Dinkar Kumbhar, G. C. Pandey, J. D. Doke, N. L. Shinde, Laxman Gate and Jayant Pandey were present in the Lottery Shop, situated at Princes Street, Mumbai, owned by Pankaj Mohanlal Mehta on 24th February, 1997 at about 9 a. m. The prosecution alleged that appellant with other co-accused visited said Shop armed with different weapons. Out of them, as per prosecution case, the present appellant was possessing a Chopper. Prosecution alleged that, the present appellant and other co-accused, robbed those prosecution witnesses of the wrist watches which they were wearing on their wrists and took away sum of Rs. 28,000/- and some lottery tickets, by threatening those persons of assault by using the weapons named above. A report was submitted in the Police Station. The investigation started. During the course of the investigation on 25-2-1997 P. S. I. N. A. R. Khan received telephone call by which he was informed that some unknown persons were sitting at a spot commonly known as "bhaucha Dhakka". He went to the said spot with Police Constable Bk. No. 34907 and by seeing the Police Officer and the constable, as per prosecution case those persons started running away. Therefore, Police Constable Sonawane caught them. Their persons were searched. Co-accused Shahadatta was found in possession of one plastic bag which was containing following articles:. Toy revolver. 2. Cash of Rs. 14,055. 25. 3. Two Wrist Watches. 4. Some lottery tickets. 5. Visiting cards. 6. A torn currency note of Rs. 10/- denomination. Those articles were seized under panchnama Exh. 17.

(3.) TEST identification parade was held, by Special Executive Magistrate Shri Vichare, P. W. 9 on 28-2-1997, in which the above said employees of Mehta who have been examined as prosecution witnesses identified the present appellant and other co-accused. As per prosecution case the appellant was holding a chopper at the time of said incident.