AMOL VISHWAS OVHAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/accused no.1, by this appeal, is challenging the judgment and order dated 6 th October 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No.149 of 2013, thereby convicting him and the co-accused of offences punishable under Sections 392,342 and 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.10,000/- and default sentence of simple imprisonment for 6 months. For the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused no.1 is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month. For the offence punishable under Section 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused no.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

(2.) Facts, in brief, leading to the prosecution of the appellant/accused no.1 along with co-accused and his resultant conviction, can be summarized thus :

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused no.1. He vehemently argued that no recovery of any looted ornaments is proved against appellant/accused no.1 Amol Ovhal. Only evidence against him is the Test Identification Parade conducted by PW12 Swati Shende- Special Executive Magistrate. The same was conducted on 23rd April 2012 and the dummies used in this Test Identification Parade were not of the same age. At the time of arrest of the appellant/accused no.1, the First Informant/PW 4 Shashiram Malik and his son PW 5 Sachin Mulik were present. So that Test Identification Parade is of no avail to the prosecution. Therefore, this evidence is of no assistance to the prosecution. It is further argued that panch witnesses used in the subject crime by the prosecution are interested witnesses. PW3 Shantaram Mane is the neighbour whereas PW7 Sunil Lambe is the friend of the prosecuting party. Hence, their evidence is not reliable. It is further argued that PW4 Shashiram Mulik or his son PW5 Sachin Mulik had not produced any Stock Register, Bills, Shop license etc. to bring on record the quantum of loot. No broken glasses were found were found on the spot of theincident. PW5 Sachin Mulik had not called police after the incident. PW4 Shashiram Mulik had not seen the incident which took place at the shop. It is further argued that no prosecution witness has attributed any role to the appellant/accused no.1 in the crime in question. According to the appellant, the FIR was for robbery of Rs.1.28 lacs but the First Informant deposed that the loot costed him Rs.7.65 lacs.