RAJU BRIJMOHAN MAURYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nirmala Uttamchandani was sixty years of age. She resided in a flat situated in a building by the name of Western Court on Marine Drive at Mumbai. Her daughter Shonali worked at the Jaslok Hospital between ten each morning until six in the evening. The needs of their household were attended to by a cook and a helper who used to clean the house. The help was part-time. The incident which led to the death of Nirmala Uttamchandani and the prosecution of the two Appellants took place on 16th November, 1999. The case of the prosecution is that Shonali ( P.W. 1) left for work as usual at or about 10.00 a.m. leaving her mother alone. After completing her work for the day, she attempted to contact her mother on the telephone but found that the telephone was continuously engaged. She entered her flat using her own set of keys and noticed that the receiver of the telephone had been taken out of the stand. She found that three cupboards were ajar and had been ransacked. The dead body of Nirmala was found close to the bed with a wound on the neck. The neighbours and the police were informed. Among the articles that were missing in the flat were currency in the sum of Rs.24,800/-, a Minolta camera, six watches including one that had been gifted to P.W. 1 by the Jaslok Hospital and several items of jewellery including five gold chains, six pendants, rings and bangles. The Appellants were plumbers who had carried out work in the co3 operative society where the flat of the deceased was situated. The FIR (Exhibit 9) was lodged on 16th November, 1999 by P.W. 1 - Shonali Uttamchandani, the daughter of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that based on the statement of the first accused, (Raju Brijmohan Mourya), a recovery of ornaments was made from the residential flat of P.W. 9, Abhishek Joshi where accused No.1 had been engaged for carrying out work for about seven days until 16th or 17th November, 1999. Ornaments were recovered under a tile in the bathroom. The case of the prosecution is that the second accused was identified by the secretary of the co-operative society, P.W. 5 Mahendra Panachand Dholakia; P.W. 5 having deposed that he had seen the accused at or about 1.00 p.m. while he was using the lift. The case of the prosecution is that based on the statement of the second accused, recovery was effected of the stolen camera, watches and currency. Seizure Panchanamas were drawn up in respect of each of the seizures. Accused No.1 was according to the prosecution identified by P.W. 9 while accused No.2 was identified by P.W. 5.

(2.) The accused were charged of offences under Sections 452, 302 and 394 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Both the accused were convicted of the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life; to a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the accused have been convicted of offences under Sections 452 and 394 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.

(3.) Appeal No.921 of 2005 has been instituted by the first accused while Appeal 922 of 2005 has been instituted by the second accused. We have heard Smt. Sarojini Upadhyay, counsel appearing on behalf of the accused Appellants and the Learned APP for the State.