RAJU SHINDE LONDHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the appellant's conviction by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month with fine of Rs. 100/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for ten days and further sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 500/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months, imposed upon the appellant alongwith five other co-accused on the two counts respectively, on conclusion of trial of Sessions Case No. 333 of 1995. Facts which are material for deciding the appeal are as under:

(2.) In the course of investigation, the investigating officer performed panchanama of spot and recorded statements of the witnesses, apprehended five of the six accused persons, recovered a wrist watch from Ganpat S. Waghmare (PW-6), arrested the present appellant, i.e., accused No. 6, and got a test identification parade of the miscreants conducted by the Nayab Tehsildhar and on completion of investigation, sent the Charge-sheet to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadgaon Mawal, District Pune, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Pune.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was made over, charged the appellant and five others of having committed the dacoity and having wrongfully restrained the complainant and others. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and hence they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all nine witnesses in its attempt to bring home guilt of the accused persons. After considering their evidence in the light of defence of denial, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced all the accused persons as aforementioned. It appears that co-accused Nos. 1 to 5 were in Jail at the time of their conviction and seem to have suffered the sentence and have been released. The co-accused have not preferred any appeal. The appellant was on bail. The appellant has questioned his conviction by the present appeal.