KASHMIRSINGH MOHANSINGH LATHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal takes exception to the judgment and Order passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Thane dated 10/03/1987 in Sessions Case No. 216 of 1986. The Appellant was prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 397 of Indian Penal code and Section 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act. The Trial Court has, however, acquitted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Indian Arms Act, on the ground that no sanction was obtained before filing of the charge-sheet, on 19/03/1986, whereas, sanction was granted vide Exhibit 32 dated 6/01/1987. The trial Court, however, convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 and Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rupees Five Hundred on each count. In default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. The trial Court directed both substantive sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that Laltaprasad (P. W. 2) was running one Petrol Pump in the name of Shri Jai Ambe Petrol Pump, Near Kolhi-Chincholi, Taluka Vasai. The Complainant Mahendra Pratap (P. W. 1) was working as a cashier at the said Petrol Pump. One Raisaheb (P. W. 3) was working as a watchman at the said Petrol Pump. Whereas, Indraben, Vansaraj, Ramadhar, Vasant (P. W. 4), Rajendra were working as fillers, Witness Chetnarayan (P. W. 6) was running a spare parts shop. The incident in question occurred in the night of 24/12/1985 and 25/12/1985. On that night, P. W. 1 was working as a cashier, P. W. 3 was watchman and P. W. 6 was filler at the Petrol Pump. At about 2. 30 a. m. on that night, one Fiat Car came to the Petrol Pump and passed away. According to the prosecution case, four Sardarjis were sitting in the said car. The said car again returned to the Petrol Pump at about 3 to 3. 15 in the night. Two Sardarjis sitting in the said car, went towards the cabin of the said Petrol Pump, whereas, two Sardarijis stood outside the cabin, at the door. The said persons were possessing weapons such as revolvers. Two of them who had entered the cabin, threatened P. W. 1 Mahendra Pratap to make over the cash available in the cash box. Since P. W. 1 was threatened, he, in turn, handed over the entire cash amounting to Rs. 55,610/ -. At the same time, he pressed the alarm and in response to that, persons who were present at the Petrol Pump, immediately rushed towards the cabin. P. W. 2 Laltaprasad, who at the relevant time, was sleeping on the upper floor of the Petrol Pump, also rushed towards the cabin. The two Sardarjis who were standing outside, opened fire and started running towards the highway, which was about 60 to 70 meters away from the cabin. Similarly, the two Sardarjis, who had entered the cabin and had collected the cash, also started running towards the rear side of the Petrol Pump. One of them fired at P. W. 3 Raisaheb, who was also chasing the said Sardarjis along with others. Raisaheb sustained two bullet injuries. Both the Sardarjis were accosted by the persons who chased them, one after the other, and revolvers in their possession were taken away. The police was informed, who in turn, reached on the spot immediately thereafter. The two persons who were accosted by the prosecution witnesses and others at the scene of offence, were made over to the police. One of the Sardarjis was badly injured by the mob while accosting him, who subsequently succumbed to the injuries. The other Sardarji accosted by the mob and handed over to the police, is the Appellant before this Court. Both of them disclosed their names to the police, which fact has been noted in the first information Report. They also disclosed the names and addresses of the other two Sardarjis who managed to flee from the scene. It is relevant to note that spot panchnama as well as recovery panchanama was drawn, which indicates that revolver was recovered which was handed over by the prosecution witnesses to the police. So far as the Appellant before this Court is concerned, cash of Rupees Five Thousand was recovered from his person, besides six live cartridges. Complaint was registered at the instance of P. W. 1 on the same night at 5. 30 a. m. The complaint graphically describes the manner in which the offence was committed by the four persons, including the Appellant before this Court. On the basis of the said complaint, further investigation was done and eventually, charge-sheet came to be filed. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, and registered as Special Case No. 216 of 1986.

(3.) DURING the trial, the prosecution examined in all eight witnesses, and the accused examined two witnesses in support of his defence. The defence of the accused was that he was one of the persons chasing the Sardarjis and the mob mistook him as the culprit, and caused his arrest in connection with the said offence. The trial Court, on analysing the evidence of each of the witness examined by the prosecution as well as the defence witnesses, has found that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has also found that the defence witnesses were of no consequence to the defence set up by the accused Appellant. The trial Court accordingly rejected the defence put forth by the Appellant and instead, preferred to convict the appellant for the alleged offences under Section 394 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, as having been proved by the prosecution. It is relevant to note that amongst the two accosted Sardarjis, the Appellant alone faced the trial because the other Sardarji Paramjitsingh Gayasingh succumbed to the injuries suffered by him, whereas, the other two Sardarjis remained absconding.