VINOD MORESHWAR VAIDYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from Sessions Case No. 101 of 1987 in which in all six accused were put on trial for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 436, 120-B and 114 all read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad by his judgment and order dated 10.5.1991 was pleased to convict accused Nos. 1, 2, and 5 for the offences punishable under Section 427 read with Section 34, 436 read with Section 34, 120-B read with Section 34 and Section 114 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Accused No. 6 came to be acquitted from all the charges whereas accused Nos. 3 and 4 were granted pardon under Section 307 of Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, were acquitted of the offences charged. Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 1991 has been filed by accused No. 1 whereas Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 1991 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of sentence as accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were granted the benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act and they were released on entering into a personal bond of Rs. 3000/-with one surety of like amount for a period of two years. However, Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 1991 came to be dismissed on 8.4.1996 against accused No. 5 (Respondent No. 3) and therefore, the said Appeal survives only against accused Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, accused No. 1 was working as the Branch Manager (Agent) of Mahad Co-Operative Urban Bank Poladpur Branch from 17.4.1980 to 16.9.1986 and thereafter, he came to be transfered to Murud Branch of the said Bank. On or about 5.9.1986 the audit of Poladpur Branch was undertaken by Shri. Shrinivas Kulkarni PW 3 and in the said process, it was pointed out by him about the missing documents, to accused No. 1 who sought sometime to produce these documents pertaining to the loan sanctioned to Smt. Pushpalata Salgare, Gayakwad, Gani Dhamankar, Ajit Bhagwat, Vasant Jadhav and Suresh Talathi. The audit was completed in the first week of October, 1986 and the accused No. 1 could not produce the missing documents of the above mentioned six loan disbursements though the loan amount was shown to have been disbursed. On or about 5.10.1986, the accused No. 1 approached accused No. 3 who was employed as a peon in the Bank with a request that he should leave the northern side door of the bank open in the night and with the help of accused No. 2 the documents lying in the bank, would be set on fire by accused Nos. 4 and 5 so that he would not be required to produce the documents and presumably he would take the plea that the missing documents were burnt during the fire, so set up. Pursuant to this plan hatched by accused No. 1 with the help of accused No. 2, accused No. 3 left the northern side door of the bank open in the night of 9.10.1986 and accused Nos. 4 and 5 entered the said branch from the northern side door between 1.00 a.m. to 1.30 a.m. with a tin can. Before entering into bank, accused Nos. 4 and 5 had gone to see a dance competition in the temple of Bhairoba. Accused No. 4 entered into the bank with a kerosene tin and accused No. 5 kept a watch by the side on the road. Accused No. 4 sprinkled kerosene from the tin on the papers lying on the counter of the bank and set them on fire by lighting a match stick and came out of the bank. They had reached Poladpur by truck No. MTT-6294 owned by accused No. 2 and driven by accused No. 6. Both of them returned to their village viz. Gandharpale and stayed at the house of accused No. 2 and reported about the successful mission. Due to this fire in the bank, smoke started oozing out and the watchmen of the neighbouring M.S.E.B. Office Namdeo Sanap PW 10 went to the landlord 's house i.e. PW 2 Abhay Butala and woke up them by around 2 a.m. PW 2 Abhay gave information to the police station and consequently PW 4 Vithal Salvi with the police force came to the bank and fire was extinguished. In the said fire along with some papers, furniture of the bank was also burnt away and the damage so caused, was calculated at Rs. 65,000/-to Rs. 75,000/-. PW 4 Vithal Salvi lodged a report on 11.10.1986 which was treated as an F.I.R. and the investigation was set in motion. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to be arrested from the house of accused No. 2 and other accused also came to be taken into custody immediately thereafter. However, all the accused were released on bail during the trial. On completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed on 23.3.1987 and charge was framed on 11.4.1990 after the case was committed to the Sessions Court as it was not triable by the Judicial Magistrate, F.C.

(3.) Accused Nos. 3 and 4, after the charge was framed, submitted applications at Exhibits-16 and 14 respectively for pardon under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they came to be allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The said accused were then presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. to record their confessions under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and by due compliance of the requirements of Section 306 by the Court, these two accused i.e. accused Nos. 3 and 4 came to be examined as PW Nos. 6 and 5. The prosecution examined other 17 witnesses in support of its case which was entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The statements of the accused Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 under Sections 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were also recorded in which, they denied their involvement in the offences. They claimed that they were falsely implicated in the offences.