PANDURANG SANJAY GANGARAM PAWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, by the appeal, has challenged the judgment and order passed on 8-8-2001, by 3rd ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No. 90 of 2001, wherein appellant was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for offence under section 395 of Indian Penal Code. By the same judgment, other accused persons (accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4) who were tried with the appellant came to be acquitted for want of evidence.

(2.) THE prosecution against the appellant was initiated in respect of the incident of commission of dacoity on midnight of 9-1-2000 at Karanja Wasti, kannad, for which one Mahadu Karbhari s/o Lahanu Shirse resident of kannad Maliwada lodged complaint on 9-1-2000 at Kannad Police Station and on the basis of that complaint, offence was registered vide Crime No. 2 of 2000. As per prosecution case, complainant has Wasti in his agricultural land and his four servants stay there along with him. On the night of incident, when complainant and his servants were sleeping in the rooms, the complainant woke up due to barking of dogs, but he could not come out of the room as the room was latched from outside. He opened the window and to his surprise, saw two persons, having covered their face and they were demanding from complainant whatever he possessed and asked him to open the room. The complainant gave cash of Rs. 500/-, but when these persons held threats the complainant was constrained to open the door of the room and these two persons entered the room, out of them, one had an axe. Those persons took away wrist watch of complainant of citizen company worth Rs. 200/ -. It was noticed that some 4 to 5 persons were outside the house having sickles, stones with them. The room was latched from outside. While leaving from the room of the servants, these persons took away ornaments, cash from them. Prakash Baburao, Asaram Gopinath, Bhausaheb Pawar, Sarjerao sonwane were the servants whose items were taken away by those dacoits. Complainant lodged the complaint at the Police Station and P. S. I. Dilpak carried out investigation. Initially, there was no clue, but when during the course of investigation in Crime No. 52 of 2000 of the said Police Station it was disclosed that these accused persons committed the offence and on interrogation with appellant Pandurang it was revealed that two items i. e. (1)Nath and (2) Mangalsutra were with him given to his wife. This disclosure made by appellant was reduced into writing and P. S. I, and the panch witness were led by appellant to his house at Talwada and on going there, the ornaments, namely, Nath and Mangalsutra which was on the person of his wife were taken and seized under panchanama. The servant Prakash Sonwane and whose wife's ornaments were taken by the dacoits on the night when dacoity was committed, identified these articles, particularly Nath and pieces of Dorlas and beats of Mangalsutra. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kannad, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

(3.) BEFORE the Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. In his statement recorded under sections 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, he has denied the recovery of articles in pursuance of the statement made by him from the possession of his wife. At the trial, prosecution examined complainant Karbhari Shirse (P. W. 1) who gave detailed account of the incident of dacoity that took place and that has been reflected in clear manner and consistently also in the complaint Exh. 15, which he immediately lodged in the Police Station. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution were Prakash Sonwane (P. W. 4) one of the servants of the complainant, who identified the articles which came to be seized at the instance of the appellant from his house being produced by his wife, ashok Patil (P. W. 3) panch witness and Investigating Officer P. S. I. Dilpak (P. W. 5 ). Through the evidence of these two witnesses, namely, Ashok Patil (P. W. 3) and P. S. I. Dilpak (P. W. 5), it is revealed that the appellant on 23-9-2000 made a statement regarding ornaments being given to his wife, vide memorandum Exh. 23, which came to be seized under panchanama Exh. 24. There was absolutely no other evidence connecting the appellant. None of the witnesses has identified the appellant. But accepting the fact of recovery of these articles which came to be stolen while committing dacoity at the house of complainant, the trial Court convicted appellant for offence under section 395 of Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence as stated above.