NARSING Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Revision Petitions arise out of same Judgment rendered by learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2004, Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2004 and Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2005. Original accused Nos.2 to 4 and 6 were convicted by learned Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge for offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Their appeals bearing Criminal Appeal No.32 of 2004, Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2004 were dismissed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed confirming the impugned order of conviction and sentence. Aggrieved thereby, they have filed the above referred revision petitions.

(2.) Complainant - Ashok Jagtap, a Hotelier, resides in a house behind Ashoka Hotel at Beed. In the wee hours of January 19th, 2004, 5/7 persons intruded in his house. They committed dacoity at point of sword by threatening his wife and son. They declamped with gold jewellery, cash amount of approximately Rs.10 lacs from the almirah in the house. They fled away after they ransacked the house so as to find out the valuables. He was informed about the incident and, therefore, he immediately went home. He gathered information about the incident of dacoity from the wife and son. He immediately informed the incident of dacoity to the Police. Co-incidently, at village Pimpalner, some villagers noticed suspicious movements of 4/5 persons in the same morning around 7.00 a.m. The villagers raised hue and cry. They and Police gave a chase to those persons and nabbed them. The Police recovered huge cash amount and jewellery articles from them. Complainant - Ashok Jagtap came to know about apprehending of thieves by Pimpalner Police and villagers. He, his wife and son visited Pimpalner Police Station and identified the ornaments, which were stolen from their house. He lodged written report with City Police Station at Beed after returning from Pimpalner Police Station. A crime bearing C.R.No.25/2004 was registered for an offence punishable under Sec. 395 of the I.P.C. Original accused Nos.1 to 4 were then arrested by Pimpalner Police. Subsequently, the other accused were arrested. Consequent upon material gathered during course of investigation, the Police charge-sheeted in all seven (7) accused persons.

(3.) At the trial, charge was framed at Exh.No.7 against those accused persons, who were arrested. At that time, original accused No.7- Papasing was absconding. The learned Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge held all the accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty and sentenced them as stated earlier. Out of them, original accused No.5 - Gopalsing preferred Criminal Revision Application No.345/2005 in this Court. A Single Judge of this Court (P.B.Gaikwad, J.) was pleased to allow the revision petition and acquit accused No.5 - Gopalsing. It appears that subsequently, original accused No.7 - Papasing was nabbed and was made to stand his trial in Sessions Case No.127/2004. That trial ended in acquittal. Original accused No.1 - Hatyarsing has not preferred revision petition.