STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MANOHAR RAGHUNATH SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th August, 1987 delivered by the Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions Case No.544 of 1986 by which the respondent-accused, who were charged for the offences under section 394, 397 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C "), have been acquitted. The respondent-accused alleged to have committed robbery on 17th September, 1986 of a bag containing an amount of Rs.10,000/- of the complainant - Shantaram Tukaram Phapale (PW 1) and while committing said robbery each of them used deadly weapon and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 394, 397 read with 34 of I.P.C.

(2.) THEY case of the prosecution as unfolded from evidence is that the complainant, who was a watchman-cum-peon with Maharashtra Marketing Federation, at Thane branch, on 17th September, 1986 was handed over a cheque of Rs.10,000/- by the cashier Shri Bhutte for encashment. The bank was at the distance of 500 ft. from the factory. After reaching bank he presented the cheque and obtained a token. The complainant was also asked to get xerox copies of one bill and, therefore, after collecting token he left the bank to get xerox copy of the bill. He delivered the bill for taking xerox copy at xerox centre which was very close to the bank, He then returned to the bank and collected cash and left the bank at about 12.20 in the afternoon. He once again went to xerox centre to collect xerox copies and after collecting the same started proceeding towards factory. The cash was kept in hand-bag. When the complainant was at a distance of about 10 ft. from gate of the factory he was accosted by two persons who were coming from opposite direction. Those persons were not known to the complainant. They stopped the bicycle of the complainant and pushed him, as a result of which he fell down when one of them removed the hand-bag and started walking away. The other person who had pushed him then took out a knife and pointed its edge at him. The complainant alleged to have caught his hand, however, he was scared and allowed said accused person to leave. The complainant claims that he did not raise any hue and cry since he was frighten. Both the respondent-accused thereafter proceeded towards the junction of Road No.22 and Road No.16 which were at a short distance. The complainant followed them. He saw the respondent-accused boarding a rickshaw and that rickshaw drove away fast from that place. The complainant noted the number of rickshaw. The complainant thereafter returned to factory where he met Factory Manager. Shri D.V. Patil. He narrated the incident to him. The complainant was asked to take jeep of the federation and chase rickshaw with one Metkar, another employee of the federation. They noticed said rickshaw coming from opposite direction but without any passenger therein. The rickshaw was thereafter intercepted with the help of police who was available near Wagle Estate police station. The complainant thereafter lodged complaint with the police. The rickshaw was brought to police station. The statement of the complainant was recorded wherein he gave description of the respondent-accused. On the basis of the complaint received by the police, investigation was set in motion. During the investigation, the respondent-accused came to be arrested. On 26.9.1986, the identification parade was conducted in which the complainant at well as rickshaw driver (PW 2) identified the accused. After the investigation was over charge sheet was submitted.

(3.) THE defence of respondent-accused is of total denial. They specifically denied to have gone to Wagle Estate area of the date of incident and to have committed any offence as alleged. They have denied the production of cash amount and knives alleged to have been used while committing the offence. The learned Sessions Judge, Thane on scrutiny of the entire evidence on record has acquitted both the respondent-accused. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the conduct of PW 1 was not natural. The contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 make the version of these witnesses doubtful. In other words, the evidence and testimony of these two witnesses did not inspire confidence. Even the evidence of PSI Sonar (PW 7) has also been discarded by the learned Judge. In so far as identification parade is concerned the learned Judge has discarded that evidence also in view of infirmities in conducting the test identification parade by PW 5. The learned Judge has, accordingly, acquitted both the respondent-accused by his judgment and order dated 10th August, 1987.