VIJAY BHASKAR SHETTY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in these three appeals were placed for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 473 of 1991 and Session Case No. 1052 of 1994 and while disposing of these two sessions cases by common judgment and order recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai dated 7th December, 1994 convicted all the three accused for the offence under sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under section 392 of the I. P. C. and granted the set off as provided as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the period which they have undergone the custody in jail and also passed order regarding the disposal of muddemal property. Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1995 is filed by the original accused No. 2 while Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 1995 is filed by original accused No. 1 and Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1995 is filed by the original accused No. 3. So far as the Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 1995 was filed by the accused Suresh alias Ashok alias Salem through Jail while Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1995 filed by original accused No. 2 and Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1995 file by original accused No. 3 are filed through respective advocate Shri Dahiwalka and Smt. Sunita Balwani and Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 1995 is filed through jail and advocate Shri. Toraskar was appointed to represent the case of original accused No. 1.

(2.) MR. Dahiwalkar the learned Counsel appearing for the accused No. 3 took us through the evidence and the judgment under challenge. While Ms. Sunita Balwani the learned advocate appearing for the accused No. 2 had submitted that looking to the evidence found during the trial, the learned Judge was not right in accepting the prosecution case and accordingly, prayed that the order of conviction and sentence recorded, deserves to be set aside.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. Singhal while taking us through the evidence, has vehemently submitted that as per the evidence led by the prosecution, the prosecution has proved that the accused are the persons who had committed the offence as according to him that as found evidence of the prosecution witnesses viz. the persons who have been robbed, had identified the accused in an identification parade arranged after the arrest of the accused and further that the muddemal robbed from the complainant which were seized from the accused were also identified by the complainant and accordingly, the learned trial Judge was right in accepting the prosecution case and prayed that the order of conviction and sentence recorded be confirmed by dismissing the appeals of the accused.