VIJAY DADASAHEB BHOSLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Appeals can be disposed of by common Judgment, as both Appeals are directed against the decision of the 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik dated December 1, 2001 in Sessions Case No.103 of 2001. The Appellants were charge-sheeted and tried for offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 342 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC').

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 30th March 2001, informant Bharat Patil went to his duty at about 8.00 hrs. and after completing his work, he returned home at 16.00 hrs. He took meal at 10.30 p.m. and went to bed. His daughter Ujjwala, son Sachin and wife Mangala were watching movie on television. At about 11.30 p.m., door of his house was knocked by 10 to 12 unknown persons. It is the prosecution case that Bharat Patil got up from his bed, when the door was opened by his daughter Ujjwala. The unknown persons rushed into the house of Bharat Patil, who were armed with sticks, iron rods and knives etc. Out of those intruders, one of them asked informant's wife Mangala to take out valuable property. One of the intruders gave blow of iron rod on the right shoulder of the informant, the other intruders also assaulted the informant by means of stick on his head. Thereafter, the said intruders opened the cupboard and scattered the articles kept therein. At the point of knife shown to the informant's wife and threat to kill her, the intruders forced open the locker of the cupboard and took away cash of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred) as also gold ornaments on the person of his wife. It is the prosecution case that the said assailants, after ransacking the house of Bharat Pail and of Kamalkangane and Yamunabai Hande, came in front of the house of Sampat Jadhav at about 12.10 hrs. and on seeing three vehicles parked in front of the house (trax bearing No.MH-15-K-6683, motor cycle bearing No.MH-15-AC-3927 and one scooter bearing No.BTE-4320), proceeded to puncture those vehicles, so that the victims should not use the same to chase them. It is not necessary to elaborate the prosecution case further, except to mention that complaint was recorded in the local Police Station. On receiving such information, First Information Report (F.I.R.) was registered and investigation commenced.

(3.) The other relevant event for deciding the present Appeals is that of arrest of respective accused during the course of investigation. Accused No.1 came to be arrested on 20th April 2001. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested on 1st May 2001. Accused No.4 was arrested on 16th May 2001 and accused Nos.5 and 6 were arrested on 21st May 2001. However, the test identification parade of all these accused were held together on 21st June 2001. The test identification parade was conducted by (PW 4) Bhanudas Pandurang Gaikwad- Executive Magistrate on the request of the Investigating Officer B.G.Kotkar. The Trial Court, on analysing the evidence on record, proceeded to convict the Appellants/accused 1 to 6 for offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC and ordered that they should suffer sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Appellants/accused 1 to 6 are also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Appellants/accused are, however, acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 and Section 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. This decision is subject matter of challenge in the present Appeals. Appeal No.3 of 2002 is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and Appeal No.4 of 2002 is filed by accused Nos.3 to 6.