VIJAY SHRIKANT KARGUTKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellants-accused against the judgment and order dated 13. 11. 1998 delivered by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay convicting the appellants for offences under sections 395, 397 and 452 of the I. P. C. in Sessions Case No. 594 of 1996.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the present appeal are as under : the robbery had taken place in the house of the complainant in the afternoon of 11/01/1996 at about 4 p. m. in Borivli (West), Mumbal. When the door was opened at the sound of the door bell, two persons entered into the house armed with chopper and knife and gave threat to the members of the household not to make noise. They were immediately followed by four more persons who were also armed with choppers and knives. Initially they asked the complainant-P. W. 1 to remove her bangles, gold chain and the ear rings which were on her person. After the said ornaments were handed over to them by P. W. 1, they removed the ear rings of the complainant's daughter Bharati from her ears. Thereafter they entered into the bedroom where P. W. 2, husband of the complainant, was resting due to heart problem. Thereafter they enquired about the locker. The complainant opened the cupboard and gave them two boxes of tins containing golden ornaments. Thereafter they removed other articles from the cupboard. They tied the hands of the inmates of the house who were husband, wife, son and daughter. Their mouths also were tied and thereafter they left the house warning them not to make noise. After the robbers left the house, front door was closed and P. W. 1 shouted from the window asking the people to eatch the thieves. However, the thieves escaped. Thereafter the complainant Sudha Mehta went to Borivli Police Station along with her daughter and reported about the robbery. She had given the list of properties also which were stolen from her house including the gold jewellery as well as camera, walkman, VCR, remote controls etc. Her First Information report is produced on record at Exhibit 15. P. W. 2 Kesrimal, the husband of the complainant was sent to Bhagwati Hospital, Borivli for examination as he had received injuries on his hand caused to him by the accused persons when he resisted thrusting cloth in his mouth by the accused persons.

(3.) ACCUSED Nos. 1 to 5 were arrested on 22/01/1996 while accused no. 6 was arrested on 26/01/1996. In all there were nine accused persons who were prosecuted for the offence of robbery etc. After arrests of the accused some stolen properties were discovered at the instance of some of the accused persons. It was identified by P. W. 1, the complainant as the property stolen from her house. T. I. parade was held in Bombay Central Prison on 5. 2. 1996. In the T. I. parade the complainant had identified all the six accused while P. W. 2 the husband of the complainant had identified accused Nos. 3 and 4. The son of the complainant Rohit had identified accused Nos. 2, 3. 4, 7 and 8 and the daughter of the complainant-Bharati had identified accused nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6. During the course of investigation the complainant had also given a supplementary statement and furnished detailed list of the stolen articles few days after the incident. After completing the investigation the police filed charge-sheet and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.