PEERAYASWAMI SUDYA TEWARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE present for the appellant, though appellant happens to be represented by Shri R.R. Mishra and S.B. Sachdeo. Shri B.R. Patil with Shri Shringarpure present for the prosecution. This appeal pertains to year 1996 and this has been duly published on board for final hearing. The accused is is in jail and the appeal is old. Therefore, it is decided in the absence of the lawyer for the appellant, on merit. The appellant along with four other accused were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 948 of 1992 for committing offences punishable under provisions of Sections 393, 394, 398 r/w Section 34, Section 398 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The appellant has been convicted for the above offences by said learned Additional Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence on record and examining the appellant in view of the provisions of section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code for convenience.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief can be stated as mentioned hereunder. Daulatram Bherumal Pehaljani, Kotumal Pehaljani and Shankar Pahaljani were going by the side of Sitaladevi Temple Road, Mahim, in their car bearing No. MAS-7991, which was being driven by driver Babu. When they were near Sitaladevi Temple at Cadel road, an ash colored fiat car came from behind and stopped in front of their car and their car was obstructed. According to the prosecution case, the present appellant and his associates by holding choppers attacked the car belonging to Daulatram Pehelajni. They assaulted Daulatram and his brothers and driver by the choppers. They broke front portion glass of the car and injured the inmates of car. The inmates of the car raised cries on hearing which members of the public collected there and on seeing them, the appellant and his associates wanted to run away with their car. But the car did not start and therefore, they started running. They were chased by the members of public. The appellant and his associates were caught near Kapad Bazar Police Chowki. The appellant and his associates were thereafter arrested by police by drawing panchanama in presence of panch witness Subhash Shankar Thite. The appellant and his associates were identified by these witnesses in Police Station before police. So also they were identified by them while giving evidence in the Court on oath. The finger prints on the frontal portion of the car and near the door handle were collected by the Finger Print Expert. Those prints were also examined According to the prosecution case, out of those finger prints specimen one was of present appellant and it tallied with his specimen finger print impression.

(3.) THIS Court examined the evidence minutely keeping in view that the appellant happens to be in jail and his advocate is absent. Shri Shringapure, Counsel appearing for the prosecution submitted that evidence of Daulartam, Kotumal and Shankar stated on oath, that appellant and his associates stopped their car near Sitaladevi Temple by obstructing their car and after the car of Pahalajani was obstructed the appellant and his associates came down from the car holding the choppers and by breaking the frontal portion of the glass of the car belonging to Pahalajani, assaulted them by choppers and caused them injuries. They stated further that the appellant and his associates ran away after the members of public started gathering there by running and two out of them were caught by the members of public and one out of them happens to be the appellant. Their evidence has been also corroborated by Bapu- Driver who has been examined as witness by the prosecution. He also identified the present appellant as one out of them while giving evidence in the Court on oath. He had identified him in the police station before police also. The evidence of this witness has been corroborated by P.W.1 Hemant Akare and Rajesh Akre who had chased the running culprits and caught two out of them and one out of them happens to be the appellant. They had identified the appellant in the police station as well as in the Court while giving evidence on oath. It is the evidence of P.C. Shamrao Sawant that he arrested them in presence of panch witness Subhash Thite.