MANSINGH DHONDIRAM SAKPAL Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this revision petition, revision petitioners original accused no.1/Mansingh Sakpal is challenging the judgment and order dated 14th Dec. 2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Mumbai, in Criminal Appeal No.402 of 2012 thereby dismissing his appeal and confirming the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate convicting him of the offence punishable under Sec. 394 read with Sec. 34 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years apart from payment of fine of Rs.500.00 and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 1 month. In all four accused persons including the revision petitioner/accused no.1 Manish Sakpal were put up for trial for offences punishable under Sec. 394, 411 read with 34 of the Penal Code vide Criminal Case No.199/PW/2006 with Criminal Case No.760/PW/2008. Learned trial Magistrate by the judgment and order dated 7th March 2012 was pleased to convict the revision petitioner/accused no.1 along with accused nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sec. 394 read with 34 of the Penal Code and they were sentenced as indicated above in this paragraph.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, as reflected from the charge-sheet filed against accused persons, informant PW1 Rakesh Jain was a salesman with the Millenium Firm. He used to take gold ornaments given by his employer to various jewelers for selling them. On 13th Nov. 2005, he took gold ornaments such a Mangalsutras, Mangalsutra pendants, ear rings and finger rings weighing 1250 gms for selling to Mulund, Bhandup and Pratap Nagar area of Mumbai. He could not effect any sale and therefore, he boarded an auto rickshaw for going to Kanjur. He sat between two persons who were already sitting in the auto rickshaw. At L.B.S. Road, Mumbai, his auto rickshaw was stopped on the pretext that one of the passengers wanted to alight. At that time, driver of auto rickshaw gave a fist blow on chest of PW1 Rakesh Jain and two persons who were sitting in the auto rickshaw started snatching his bag. Ultimately, his bag came to be snatched and he was pushed out of the auto rickshaw. PW1 Rakesh Jain then called his employer and lodged a report Exhibit 6 on the very same day with Park Site Police Station, Mumbai, which resulted in registration of Crime No.377 of 205 under Sec. 394 read with 34 of the IPC. After filing of the charge-sheet on completion of the investigation, the revision petitioner along with co-accused were tried for the offence punishable under Sec. 394 read with 34 of the Penal Code and after hearing parties, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to convict the revision petitioner/accused no.1 along with accused nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sec. 394 read with 34 of the Penal Code and they came to be sentenced as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

(3.) The revision petitioner/accused no.1 carried that judgment in appeal but his appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 14th Dec. 2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai.