LAWS(BOM)-2002-10-37

ANWARALIASSIKANDARALIASAKBARALIASFAIYAZ HUSSEIN KASIM QURESHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On October 28, 2002
ANWAR ALIAS SIKANDAR ALIAS AKBAR ALIAS FAIYAZ HUSSEIN KASIM QURESHI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Anwar @ Sikandar @ Akabar @ Faiyaz Hussein Kasim Qureshi is hereby assailing correctness propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 688 of 1992 - 308 of 1992, wherein this appellant was tried along with seven other accused and was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. The prosecution case, in brief, can be stated as mentioned hereunder.

(2.) THE incident of train robbery took place on 16/7/1991 on a running train between V. T. and Kurla. The appellant and his associates as per prosecution case, boarded a compartment in that train wherein P. W. Ashok Thakur who had got in from V. T. was sitting and wanted to go to Wadala, to purchase Mangoes. He was in First Class compartment. At Wadala he got down and purchased Mangoes and boarded the train to go to Bandra. The said unfortunate train which was looted was late and came to Wadala station at 8. 20 P. M. There were 10 to 12 passengers along with him. The appellant and his associates were armed, they took away valuables from the said witness and others at the point of arms. A wrist watch was stolen from Ashok Thakur by the appellant as per prosecution case. When the train robbers went away and thereafter when the said train reached Mahim Station, the witnesses Ashok Thakur and others who were looted, lodged the police report in Mahim Railway Police Station. The said complaint was investigated into and the appellant along with his associates was put to trial.

(3.) THE prosecution adduced evidence of Ashok Thakur and P. W. Surayakant Bhavanji Sachadev, Special Executive Magistrate in respect of identification parade. The learned trial judge accepted their evidence against the present appellant as sufficient enough for conviction and sentence and he passed the order which has been mentioned above.