LAWS(BOM)-2008-2-323

SANJAY @ NAMDEO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On February 08, 2008
Sanjay @ Namdeo Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to judgement rendered by learned 4th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2006 whereby appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under section 397 of the I.P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years.

(2.) Briefly stated, prosecution case is that the appellant was working as cook at a hotel styled as "Hotel Rathi", situated on Railway Station road at Aurangabad. There took place an untoward incident regarding burning of car vehicle of the hotel owner and hence, he was sacked from the job. In the evening of 7th December, 2005 at about 19.30 Hrs., he visited hotel called "Hotel Prithvi", situated near Siddharth Garden at Aurangabad. He was armed with an iron tommy. He approached Manager of the hotel, namely, Sanjay Palkar and called upon him to take out the cash in the counter and give it to him. He raised the tommy so as to give a blow on person of the Hotel Manager, which the latter dodged. He threatened the servants of the hotel that if anyone would intervene, then each of them would be eliminated. He thereafter picked up cash amount of Rs. 2000/- which was in the cash counter and left the hotel. He was lateron arrested on basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the Manager - Sanjay Palkar. The iron tommy was recovered from him. On basis of his confessional statement, cash amount of Rs. 2000/- was recovered from his residential house. A recovery panchanama was drawn. On basis of material gathered during the investigation, he came to be chargesheeted for offence punishable under sections 392 and 397 of the I.P. Code.

(3.) At trial, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge (Exh-3). He denied truth into the accusations. His defence was one of simple denial. It is suggested, however, that the hotel owner desired to appoint him as cook at Hotel Prithvi, but he had refused to accept such job and, therefore, he had been falsely framed in the criminal case.