STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AT THE INSTANCE OF D C B C I D BOMBAY Vs. KHODYA ALIAS KHODIDAS SONABHANI CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The surrounding of a hospital which are normally peaceful witnessed a peculiar incident. Not being aware of the design alleged to have been engineered by the person, who was no stranger, on Ashok Singh, the complainant was standing outside the Parsi General Hospital located on Bemanji Petit Road in this metropolitan city engaged in the process of counting currency notes. At that point of time the respondent herein, who was know before hand to the complainant, all of a sudden emerged on the scene and before the complainant could grasp the implications of the situation, the respondent whipped out a knife, held it against the person of the complainant and snatched the bundle of the aid currency notes, which amount to about Rs. 200/- After having achieved the object, the respondent stated fleeing away from the spot. The complainants reaction was as expected. He stated shouting, which attracted the attention of the passes by. May be that it was the co-incidence, which proved to be very costly and unfortunate for on Vishwanath, who was then passing by the road. He and his fiend responded to the shouts given by the complainant and soon they realised that the respondent had committed mischief and was running away with the booty. These two persons, therefore, chased the respondent for a short distance. The respondent first brandished the knife in order to abandon the chase. By that time the gap of distance was reduced considerably. However, the other friend of Viswanath became more apprehensive of his own safety and withdrew from the chase, whereas Vishwanath was more bold and firm and went ahead all alone. The moment he was in the close proximity of the respondent and thus was obviously in the danger zone, the respondent became more active an aggressive and immediately he inflicted two stab blows in quick succession, which landed on the thigh of Vishwanath, who collapsed on the ground, which facilitated respondents escape from the spot. Vishwanths friends and other persons gathered there and saw that Vishwanaths condition was rather precarious as he was profusely bleeding Vishwanath was taken to Nair Hospital, though within a short time of his entry he succumbed to the injuries.

(2.) The matter was reported to Gamdevi Police Station when the whole of investigation started moving swiftly. I due course the Sub-Inspector attached to the said police station lodged his complaint on the basis of which offence under sections 392 and 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to the act of robber in which Ashok Singh was looted as also an offence under section 302 of the Penal Code as regards homicidal death of Vishwanath was registered. Investigation commenced and the respondent- accused came to be arrested on April 14, 1981. He was accompanied by his associate who was equally involved in the said transaction. He was however, absconding for quite some time and ultimately he came to be arrested on October 5, 1981. The matter was then entrusted to D.C.B., C.I.D when it was registers under new Crime Register number, attached to that wing. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court. Bombay against the respondent herein on July 20, 1981 while the co-accused was shown as absconding. This would complete the narration of the facts of the first phase pertaining to the investigation, culminating in the filing of the charge-sheet. Thereafter certain developments occured when the matter was lodged in the Court. It is relevant to note even at this juncture that after the arrest of the respondent in April 1981 no attempt was made by in whatsoever at any stage before commitment to more the learned Magistrate for bail with the result that from time he was remanded to Police Custody and thereafter to judicial custody. In due course, the respondent was committed to the Court of Sessions in July 1981, which is the subject matter of Sessions Case No. 439 of 1981 pending before the sessions Court, greater Bombay. After the arrest of the co-accused he was also separately committed to the Court of sessions which is the subject matter of Session Case No. 107 of 1982. For obvious reasons, both the Sessions cases were amalgamated.

(3.) It is on September 28, 1981 that for the first time and that too after committal that the respondent filed an application for bail, being Criminal Misc, Application No. 310 of 1981, in the Sessions Court. This application came to be rejected by the Sessions Court on merits. In the meanwhile the co-accused was released by the learned Magistrate on bail, though he jumped bail, but thereafter was re-arrested.