PRAVINKUMAR KAILASHCHANDRA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in sessions Case No. 224 of 1991 filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the Sessions Judge, greater Bombay whereby accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted under section 392 read with section 397 and section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R. I. for 7 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each i/d. R. I. for 2 months each. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were also convicted under section 135 read with section 37 (1) (a) of Bombay police Act, 1951 and sentenced to suffer R. I. for 4 months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each i/d. S. I. for one week. (Sentences imposed on accused Nos. 1 and 2 to run concurrently ). The accused No. 3 was convicted under section 392 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R. I. for 4 years and to pay a fine or Rs. 500/- i/d. R. I. for one month.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 29-7-1990 at about 12. 00 noon P. W. 1 Ramtej R. Gupta who owns a taxi car took the taxi out for business from Golibar, Santacruz and by 9. 15 p. m. came to regal Cinema. At that time three persons approached him and asked him to take them to Dadar and they got into the taxi. While the taxi was proceeding to Mahatma Phule Market, the accused asked P. W. 1 to stop the taxi at Manish Market. Then two of them went towards the Manish Market and returned after 5 minutes and P. W No. 1 then proceeded towards Dadar. When the taxi reached near Sharda Cinema, Dadar one of the accused told him to take the taxi to Dr. R. A. Kidwai Road by taking a right turn. Then it was about 10. 00 p. m. Then P. W. No. 1 was again asked to take taxi towards Wadala Station and as the taxi was proceeding, one of the accused persons told P. W. 1 to stop the taxi in front of two tankers standing by the side of the road. Accordingly the taxi was stopped in front of these tankers. Then one of the accused persons sitting behind, opened the complainant s side door and sat in the taxi and pointed out a knife to complainant above his waist and one person who was sitting in the taxi on the rear seat pointed out a knife on his neck and the person who was sitting by the side of the complainant threatened him and removed cash from his pocket and demanded the wrist watch. Thereafter P. W. 1 was asked to get down of the taxi. Then the first person who pointed out the knife to P. W. 1 took the taxi taking U turn and fled away. Though the complainant shouted for help nobody came forward. When the complainant was walking ahead he saw one taxi driver and he told the incident to that taxi driver and with the help of that taxi driver he came to the police station to lodge complaint and the complaint was lodged. The complainant has given description of the accused persons in his statement.

(3.) ON 29-7-1990 the police have drawn panchnama of the scene of offence. During investigation an identification parade was conducted. In that parade all the three accused were identified by P. W. 1. After that charges have been laid against the accused persons. On behalf of the prosecution in all six witnesses have been examined. P. W. 1 is the complainant. P. W. No. 2 is the constable who proved Police Commissioner s order dt. 26-9-1990 prohibiting the use and carrying of weapons by any person during the period from 29-7-1990 till 28-8-1990, P. W. 3 is p. S. I. who recorded the panchnama. P. W. No. 4 is special Executive Magistrate who conducted identification parade. P. W. No. 5 is the panch witness for recovery of the wrist watch. P. W. No. 6 is the Investigating Officer. The accused persons denied the charges. The learned Sessions judge after appreciating the evidence of P. W. No. 1 and other witnesses found all the three accused guilty.