MOHAMAD IDRIS NASIBALI PATHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused who was convicted for having committed offence under Sections 392 and 397 of IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years by the Judgment and order dated 27th February 1981 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, has preferred this appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE circumstances leading to the conviction of the appellant can be briefly summarised as follows: The appellant was engaged initially as a cleaner in April 1987 by PW 4 K.C. Sinha who was owner of the tempo bearing No.MRQ 5383. Later on from June or July 1978 appellant was appointed as a driver on the same tempo on monthly salary of Rs. 350/-. As the appellant had committed accident and otherwise the owner had grievance against him for not properly accounting for the collections he made, the appellant was dismissed from service on 19th August 1978. Within a period of eighty to ten days, after the dismissal of the appellant, the owner hired the services of Ramchandra laxman Kajare PW 6 as a driver on the said tempo with effect from 1st September 1978. the appellant was dismissed from the said job and therefore the allegations are that the appellant used to hold out threats both to the owner Sinha and complainant Kajare.

(3.) AFTER the investigation was complete the chargesheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. At the trial the prosecution laid evidence of 13 witnesses including complainant Kajare pw 6, Tiwari pw 2, Dalvi pw 3 and owner of the tempo Sinha pw 4. Besides them, the prosecution have examined three panch witnesses for proving the spot panchanama and recovery panchanama and the laundry owner Bashir Ahmed PW 11. PW 12 and PW 13 are the police officers including IO. Mr. Kolekar, PI, was PW 13. The Sessions Court had framed the charges against both the accused under Sections 392 and 397 of IPC. The accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the original accused No 2. was of total denial. He denied to have accompanied accused No.1 The present appellant had admitted that he was engaged by Sinha first as a cleaner and then as a driver of his tempo and that he was dismissed from service. However, he denied to have threatened either the owner or the complainant. He also denied the discovery of the transistor and the wrist watch or that he had caused any injury to complainant Kajare.