SARJERAO RAMBHAU JADHAV Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Exception is taken by the present applicant to the Judgment and order dated 29/11/2000 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Majalgaon, District Beed in R.C.C. No. 60/1997, whereby the present applicant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 392 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- [Rupees Five Hundred only], in default further Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 months. He was also convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 457 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- [Rupees Five Hundred only], in default further Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months, together with the Judgment and order dated 17/10/2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Criminal Appeal No. 8/2001, by which the learned appellate Court dismissed the Appeal filed on behalf of the present applicant. The applicant faced Charge from the learned Magistrate, Majalgaon that on 24/02/1997 at 00.30 hrs. at village Bhatwadgaon, Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed, he committed an offence of lurking house trespass by entering into the house belonging to one Sudhir Vishwanathrao Rampurkar along with others and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 457 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also charged that on the said date and time, he robbed golden ornaments and cash worth Rs. 8,975/- [Rupees Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Five only] belonging to Sudhir Rampurkar and his wife and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is to be noted that initially Uttam Kashinath Gaikwad was tried for the same incident independently and the learned trial Court acquitted said Uttam Gaikwad.

(3.) The prosecution case, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P., it is clear, is based only on the memorandum statement of the present applicant recorded u/s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is at Exh. 21 and the consequent recovery of the golden ornaments.