DILIP MAHENDRA THAPA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed against them by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 949 of 1996, whereby the appellants are convicted for offences punishable under Section 392 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24-9-1994 P. W. Raju Chandwani was sitting in his office with Secretary, Maya Punjabi, the prosecution witness. It is alleged by the prosecution that at about 4. 30 p. m. or so, the appellants came armed with revolver, choppers and at the point of these weapons, looted cash of Rs. 15,000/- from P. W. Raju Chandwani. The appellants, as per prosecution case, sat in a car and ran away from the spot. The number of the said car was noticed by Chandwani. Chandwani reported the incident to Vakola Police Station. The officers of the Vakola Police Station came to the spot, drew panchanama and after recording FIR of Raju Chandwani, investigation started. One of the appellants was involved in another criminal prosecution also. It seems that others were also involved in criminal prosecution. When they were brought to Vakola Police Station, Raju Chandawani saw them, when they were alighted from the Motor van, he identified them and informed the concerned police officers about that. No identification parade has been held except this one. The prosecution witness Raju Chandwani identified the appellants while giving evidence in the Court. The learned trial Judge accepted the prosecution evidence and concluded that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, he passed the order of conviction and sentence, which has been assailed by this appeal.

(3.) MISS Bhojane, submitted that no legal test identification parade was held, solitary witness Raju Chandwani claimed to have identified the appellants and the learned trial Judge accepted that identification as legal and correct identification and held that the appellants were the culprits who committed robbery in the shop of Raju Chandwani. She submitted that the said conviction cannot be upheld and therefore, the appellants be acquitted. Shri B. R. Patil tried his best to support the judgment of conviction and sentence, but keeping in view the legal flaws in the way of conducting the trial he had his own limitations.