MANGESH RAMCHANDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned APP for the State.

(2.) Appellants have filed this appeal, challenging the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, convicting the accused for an offence punishable under section 394 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 397 read with section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. By the said judgment and order, the Sessions Court was pleased to sentence both the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and 7 years respectively and, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months respectively.

(3.) Mr. Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that so far as appellant No. 1 (accused No. 1) is concerned, he had already undergone the sentence and was released. However, so far as appellant No. 2 (accused No. 2) is concerned, he submitted that the Trial Court had erred in relying on the identification of accused No. 2 in Court for the purpose of convicting him for the aforesaid offences. He submitted that the Trial court, having disbelieved the test identification parade which was held in the police Station, ought not to have relied upon the identification of accused No. 2 by the complainant in Court in view of the fact that the first test identification was disbelieved and a logical inference which could be drawn was that the accused No. 2 could have been seen by the complainant in the Police Station or could have been shown by the Police before the test identification parade. He submitted that, that being the position, no emphasis could have been laid on the fact that accused No. 2 was identified in the Court Room subsequently. He submitted that identification of accused No. 2 was the only piece of evidence which was available with the prosecution as there was no other evidence for. establishing the identity of accused No. 2.