DATTATRAYA GUNYABA SIDHAGANESH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have no other option but to allow these two appeals filed by the original accused against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, holding that the three appellants in these two appeals had committed offence of dacoity, punishable under Section 395 of the Penal Code. The most important evidence to prove that the dacoity was committed has been either withheld by the prosecution or the prosecution has been lax in the matter of producing the same.

(2.) It is unnecessary to state the facts, at length, relating to the prosecution case. They have been sufficiently and correctly stated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment out of which both these appeals arise. Appeal No. 979 of 1981 is filed by original accused Nos. 1 and 3 while Appeal No. 1028 of 1981 is filed by original accused No. 2. All the three accused faced a charge of dacoity punishable under Section 395 of the Penal Code in the Sessions Court. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on 26-2-1981 two Policemen of the Railway Protection Force (Rakshakas) noticed C.S.T. 9 plates being loaded in a truck standing on a bridge on the railway track between Kurduwadi Railway Station and Vadsingi Railway Station. At that time they were accompanied by two gangmen. All these four were successful in intercepting and blocking the way of the truck. In the truck there were about 10 men. As the truck was intercepted, an attempt was made by the inmates of the truck to attack one of the policemen (Rakshakas), with the result that a shot had to be fired by one of them towards, the truck. During the incident certain villagers came to the place of the scene of offence which took place at about 3 a.m. on that day. The Rakshakas, gangmen and the villagers who had gathered there were successful in apprehending four out of the 9 or 10 inmates of the truck including the cleaner. A panchanama of the relevant articles found at the place of the offence as also of the contents of the truck was made. Prosecution contention is that 63 CST pieces of 9 plates were found in the truck under a tarpaulin sheet. The case of the prosecution is that the four accused persons who were produced before the Court to face the charge under Section 395 of the Penal Code are 4 persons out of 9 or 10 offenders who had committed dacoity by committing theft of those 63 pieces of 9 CST plates, and while carrying these stolen articles, they attacked the policemen who were preventing them from effecting the theft and caused injury to one of them.

(3.) It may be mentioned here that in addition to the four accused six other persons were also arrested by the police during the investigation of the offence and all of them were ultimately produced before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate for the committal proceedings. Accused No. 10 out of them was the owner of the truck. All the 10 accused were committed by the learned Magistrate to the Sessions Court for trial. However, before framing charge against the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was satisfied that no offence could be brought home against the owner of the truck who was added as accused No. 10 in these proceedings. He was therefore discharged by the learned Additional Sessions Judge even before framing of the charge. So far as the remaining 9 accused were concerned, charge was framed against them for offence punishable under Section 395 of the Penal Code to the effect that they had committed dacoity on the date and place in question by committing theft of CST 9 plates belonging to the Railways.