PANKAJ RAKHMAJI MORE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal bearing No.61 of 2012 is filed by appellant/accused No.3 Pankaj More, whereas Criminal Appeal bearing No.375 of 2013 is filed by appellant/accused No.1 Henry D'souza. Both these appeals are challenging the Judgment and Order dated 16/08/2010 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No.753 of 2008 thereby convicting accused Nos.1 to 3 of offences punishable under Sections 392, 397 and 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 392 and 397 of the IPC, accused persons were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years apart from payment of fine of Rs.100/- and default sentence of fifteen days. For the offence punishable under Section 452 read with Section 34 of the IPC, they came to be sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.100/- and default sentence for fifteen days.

(2.) Briefly stated, prosecution case is thus :

(3.) I heard Ms.Ayubi, the learned Advocate appointed to represent the appellants/accused at the cost of the State. She vehemently argued that the learned trial Court placed reliance on recorded close circuit cameras footage in absence of the certificate under Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act and, as such, the impugned Judgment and Order cannot be sustained. She further argued that the appellants/accused were unknown to the prosecution witnesses. The test identification parade was conducted twenty days after arrest of the appellants/accused and, therefore, evidence regarding test identification parade allegedly conducted by P.W.No.14 Sharad Vichare is of no assistance to the prosecution. The revolver allegedly used while committing the offence was ultimately found to be a toy revolver and the learned trial Court had not relied on evidence of recovery of choppers from the accused No.4 and, therefore, it cannot be said that guilt of the appellants/accused for the offence held to be proved against them is, in fact, established.