DINANATH KAMLASANKAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this appeal appellant/original accused No. 2 has challenged the judgment and order dated 6th February, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater bombay in Session Case No. 56 of 1994. By the said judgment and order, the learned session Judge convicted the appellant under section 452 read with section 34 and under section 394 read with section 34 of i. P. Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month in both the offences. The learned Sessions Judge directed the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case briefly stated is as under P. W. 1 Smt. Muktaben Navinchandra shah was residing in Flat No. 7 at walkeshwar House, Mumbai with her family. On the day of incident, someone rang the door bell. On opening the door, one person entered into the house stating that he had been sent from Girgaon office to repair the telephone. Two persons who were standing behind that person also entered in the house and they closed the door. One of them asked the complainant to give them the keys of the cupboard. The complainant tried to run but she was assaulted with the butt of the revolver, on her lower lip/chin. Due to this, she sustained bleeding injury. Meanwhile maid servant who was in the house, raised shouts. Due to this watchman P. W. 3 Dilip Yadav and other persons carne to the first floor, where complainant was residing. Due to this, the accused persons started running away. Two of them jumped from the balcony of the first floor. Out of them, one ran away the other sustained injury and hence he could not run away. The third person hid himself under a big table in the balcony. He was holding a revolver. The accused who had jumped from the balcony and got injured was caught by the watchman and other persons, and he was brought to the first floor. Thereafter the police was informed and complaint came to be filed. The complainant was referred for medical examination. P. W. 6 Dr. Suresh agarwal examined the complainant. He found CLW on the lower lip of the complainant. Suturing was done on the said injury. The accused who was injured while jumping from the balcony i. e. present appellant was also sent for medical examination. P. W. 8 Dr. B. B. Dasgupta examined the appellant. On examination, the accused was found to have pain in the back and wedge compression fracture in his spine and CLW on eye-brow. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.

(3.) CHARGE came to be framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under section 452 read with section 34 and under section 394 read with section 34 of I. P. Code. The case proceeded against accused no. 2 as the other two accused had absconded and their case is kept on the dormant file. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para 1 above. Hence, this appeal.