RAMDAS BABA SAHEBSHITKAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appellants who were Accused Nos. 1, 3 and s and were prosecuted with other two Accused Nos. 2 and 4 in Sessions case No. 73 of 1991 on the file of learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Baramati, and were convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under sections 342, 395 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith Accused Nos. 2 and 4, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to suffer further, rigorous imprisonment for one month each on the first count, and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 2000 each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months each on the second count and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of rs. 3000 in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year each on the last count, have preferred this appeal. Accused Nos. 2 and 4, it appears have not filed any appeal against their conviction and sentences awarded to them,

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under : -

(3.) IT appears that the investigation was carried out but till about a year no trace, of the culprits was there. Ultimately the accused were arrested on 23rd January, 1991 on the basis of some information which was received by the Investigating Officer. The Accused Nos. 1. to 5 are alleged to have discovered certain articles. Accused No. 5, Vilas, is alleged to have made a statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act leading to the discovery of the cash box, Article No. 1, which is identified by Shoba P. W. 1 as the cash box which was taken away by the miscreants on the night of the incident. Accused No. 4 is alleged to have discovered a Tommy. The other accused persons i e. 1 and 3 are not alleged to have discovered any article as such. However, the prosecution has relied upon some discovery in the form of the accused taking the police and the panchas to the place of incident and pointing out and demonstrating the manner in which they had entered the premises and how they had committed the offence. There is no other evidence led by the prosecution agaimt the accused. It is only on the strength of this evidence that all the five accused came to. be convicted holding them guilty of the offences punishable under sections 342, 395 and 396 of the Indian Penai Code and they have been sentenced as stated earlier.