SHAUKATALI ABDULSALEM SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dtd. 17/1/2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.37/2011. The appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 392 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer RI for three months. He was also convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 397 read with 34 of IPC and was sentenced to suffer RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer RI for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. He was granted set off under Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period of detention undergone as under-trial prisoner.

(2.) Initially, there were two accused in the case. However, accused No.2 Mhammaad Mehtabli was absconding and, therefore, the trial was conducted only against the present appellant.

(3.) The prosecution case is that on 14/9/2009 after midnight i.e. between the intervening night of 13/9/2009 and 14/9/2009, the first informant was waiting to go home after reaching Thane. Two persons came in Indigo car, offered him lift and when he sat in the car, he was taken to a distant place. He was shown knife by one of them. He was assaulted by the same person. Both the persons then took away his golden ornaments and mobile phone. The prosecution case is that the appellant was driving the car when his companion showed knife and took away the ornaments and mobile phone. The first informant was allowed to go. Thereafter, he lodged his FIR on 15/9/2009 vide C. R. No.I-163/2009 at Rabodi police station, Thane. The appellant was arrested on 3/10/2019 by laying a trap because there were allegations of commission of similar offences. At that time, the informant's mobile phone was found on his person. The appellant was arrested on 3/10/2009. In the meantime, the investigation was commenced. There was recovery of ornaments at the instance of the appellant. At the conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and the case was tried before the Sessions Court.