FAROOQ MANSOOR KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 347, 392 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and read with Section 397 of I.P.C. by the Sessions Court have filed this appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence. Each of the appellants was sentenced to RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer RI for three months for conviction under Section 347 and RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer RI for three months for conviction under section 392 read with section 34 of IPC and RI for seven years for conviction under Section 392 read with Section 397 of IPC. The aforesaid were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case briefly stated is as follows : The complainant is one Jagdishsingh Mirchandsingh Thakur (PW 5) who is a taxi driver and was plying taxi in Greater Bombay being Taxi No.MMT 3835 owned by prosecution witness Sopan Khade. The complainant used to ply taxi during the night time between 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. The incident had taken place on the night on 4-8-90 after he as usual started plying taxi at 7 p.m. from taxi stand at Chembur, Bombay. Near Chitra Cinema at Dadar four appellants waived him to stop the taxi around 10 p.m. After they boarded the taxi the taxi driver was asked to proceed to Jogeshwari. Three of the accused sat on the rear side and one on the front seat. On the highway at Jogeshwari the accused sitting on the front seat next to the driver asked him to take the taxi on the side of the road and stop there and thereafter asked him as to what the taxi fare was. The accused sitting on the rear side came out and pointed a knife at the complainant. Similarly the accused sitting on the front seat took out a knife and pointed the knife from the other side of the neck of the complainant. The accused who had come from the rear seat pushed the complainant and sat himself at the steering and started proceeding towards Dahisar side. On the way two accused sitting on the rear side removed Rs.140/- from the shirt and pant pockets of the complainant and warned him not to make noise and threatened to kill him with knife in case he shouted. Thereafter the complainant was asked to go and sit on the rear side of the taxi. After a little while the complainant was asked to get out of the taxi and the accused ran away with the taxi. He thereafter went to Jogeshwari Police Station and lodged the complaint which was recorded as FIR (Ex.16). In the complaint he had pointed out the entire incident and that his taxi had tape recorder, two speakers and an extra tyre. In his further statement the complainant also gave description of the four passengers who sat in his taxi. The complainant thereafter went to the house of PW 3 Suryavanshi and narrated the incident to him. He thereafter went to search the taxi and found that the same was parked near Andheri Court with the doors partially open. The police were accordingly informed who took charge of the taxi by drawing panchanama. The two speakers and tape recorder from the said taxi were found missing. The taxi was taken to Jogeshwari Police Station where the complainant was lodged. After the accused were arrested PW 4 SEM Raju Jadhav held the identification parade on 15-8-90. Two identification parades were held. In the first parade two suspects i.e. appellant nos. 1 and 3 were kept both of whom were identified by the complainant Thakur. In the second parade also two other suspects i.e. appellant Nos.2 and 4 were identified. After the investigation was over the charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

(3.) THE appellants denied the case of the prosecution as being false. Appellant No.1 stated that he had no connection with the offence in question and he was falsely implicated and that he was carrying on his own business of garments and repairing of electronic goods. According to him the tape recorder article 1 and speakers article 2 were found with him by the police because they were given to him for repairing. He denied that test identification parade was held. Appellant No.2 also denied holding of TI parade and that he was identified and he was falsely arrested by the police. Appellant No.3 also denied that he had committed the offence. He also denied the holding of the TI parade and his identification. According to him he had booked a ticket in Sharda Talkies, Dadar and he had gone to the last show and when he was coming out he was arrested by the police. Appellant No.4 also stated that he was falsely involved in the case and was arrested on VT Railway Station when he was going back to his native place at Jabalpur.