RAMZAN MBWANA MAZUWA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this appeal, the appellants have challenge the judgment and order dated 6-6-1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No. 319 of 1990, convicting and sentencing them in the manner stated hereinafter :---

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the appellants participated in two separate incidents;--First took place on 19/20th December, 1989 wherein they abducted one Chanakya Shivram Jaiswal; thereafter killed him; and robbed his watch. In respect of it, C. R. No. 833 of 1989 was registered at Azad Maidan Police Station. Second took place on 25th December, 1989 wherein they abducted one Deju Nilaya Pujari P. W. 1, caused hurt to him and thereafter robbed him of his watch. In relation to it, C. R. No. 839 of 1989 was registered at Azad Maidan Police Station. In the second incident, at about 5. 30 a. m. on 25th December, 1989, the appellants boarded the taxi of Deju Pujari P. W. 1 near Hotel Diplomat, Merry Weather Road, behind Taj Mahal Road, Bombay and thereafter proceeded in the said taxi along with Deju Pujari and when they boarded off the taxi, they snatched Rs. 250/- belonging to him, his Romer Wrist watch and also assaulted him.

(3.) SINCE in the second incident, the main evidence against the appellants was identification for the first time in Court, by the victim Deju Pujari P. W. 1 and it is not prudent to accept the same in view of the observations contained in para 3 of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1979 Supreme Court, page 1127 (Kanan and others v. State of Kerala) we are not going deeper into it and we think the appellants deserve the benefit of doubt. If the evidence of identification is eliminated then the residual evidence is recovery of the wrist watch of the victim from the appellant No. 1 and finger prints of appellants Nos. 2 and 3 on the taxi, wherein the victim was abducted and robbed. In our view, the said evidence is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellants in respect of the second incident. Mr. S. R. Borulkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, also could not justify the conviction of the appellants in relation to it.