AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1] The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 28th April 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Pune in
Sessions Case No.160 of 2008 arising out of C.R. No.218 of 2006 registered with Bhosri Police Station, Pune, thereby convicting the appellant under
Sections, 395, and 457 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years on each count and to to pay total
fine amount of Rs.10,000/Â.
The said Judgment and Order dated 28th April 2012 is impugned herein.
2] By an Order dated 12th September 2014, Smt. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi, the learned Advocate was appointed to espouse the case of the appellant.
Heard Smt. Nasreen Ayubi, the learned Counsel appointed by this Court for the appellant and the learned APP. Perused the record.
3] The prosecution case in brief is as under:Â
(i) In the intervening night of 21.6.2006 and 22.6.2006 and particularly in the weeÂhours of 22.6.2006 i.e. between 3.00 a.m to 4.00 a.m the appellant
along with four other accused persons broken open the door of the house of Shri Mangesh Patil (PW No.1) and committed criminal tresspass in his
house. That the appellant was holding a sword in his hand. The coÂaccused Lalsingh Dagar (accused No.7) was holding country made fireÂarm. The
appellant and other accused by putting the inmates of the house i.e. Shri Mangesh Patil (PW No.1), Smt. Sandhya Patil (PW No.2) and their two
children under the fear of death, robbed the ornaments and other valuables from the cupboard. That a bulb in the passage of the said building was
burning and in the light of the said bulb initially Shri Mangesh Patil and Smt. Sandhya Patil had an occasion to see the appellant while committing
dacoity in their house. The appellant and other accused persons threatened the inmates to switch off the other lights. The incident of dacoity was
going on for about 15 to 20 minutes. Thereafter the appellant and other accused left the said premises by locking the main door of the said house from
outside. While leaving the house, the appellant and other accused persons threatened the inmates of the house of direÂconsequence, if they raise
alarm or noice.
(ii) After the appellant and other accused persons left the said house, the inmates of the said house raised alarms whereupon the neighbours gathered
there. It was revealed that, the appellant and coaccused had also committed dacoity in the house of Shri Kolte which was situated on the ground floor
of the said building.
(iii) The first information report of Mr. Mangesh Patil (PW No.1) came to be lodged and was reduced in writing by Shri Rajendra Dhamankar (PW
No.5), Police Officer attached to Bhosri Police Station, Pune. The investigation was thereafter conducted by Shri Karbhari Handore (PW No.7)
A.P.I. attached to the said Police Station. During the course of investigation, the appellant came to be arrested on transfer warrant, as he was also
involved in another crime bearing No.426 of 2006 registered with  Swargate Police Station, Pune and was arrested by Shri Bajirao Jagtap (PW
No.8), an officer attached to AntiÂDacoity Cell. The Investigating Agency recovered various ornaments which came to the share of the appellant in
the presence of panchÂwitness Shri Mangesh Waikar (PW No.4).
(iv) After completion of investigation, the police submitted chargesheet in the Court of competent jurisdiction. As the offence under Section 395 of the
Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Trial
Court framed charge below ExhibitÂ8 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The said charge was
read over and explained to the appellant and other accused to which they denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case,
examined in all eight witnesses. The learned Trial Court after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties to the said case, was pleased to
convict the appellant by its impugned Judgment and Order dated 28th April 2012 as stated hereinabove.
4] The record indicates that, Shri Mangesh Patil (PW No.1) in his testimony has clearly stated that, the incident of dacoity was continued for a period
of about 15 to 20 minutes and he and his wife had sufficient opportunity to observe the appellant and other accused during the said period though the
faces of the accused persons were partly covered, they also observed the stature of the accused persons. The Test Identification Parade has been
conducted by Shri Sandesh Shirke (PW No.6), Nayab Tahsildar of Haveli, DistrictÂPune and Special Executive Officer wherein Shri Mangesh Patil
(PW No.1) and Smt. Sandhya Patil (PW No.2) have identified the appellant and other accused persons in the said test identification parade. Apart
from the identification in the test identification parade by the said two witnesses, they have also identified the appellant and other accused persons
during the course of recording of substantive evidence in the Court. The evidence of Smt. Sandhya Patil duly corrborates the versions of Shri
Mangesh Patil.
5] Thus the identification of the appellant by PW Nos.1 and 2 is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record further indicates that, after
the arrest of appellant, recovery of the ornaments has been effected at his instance in the presence of PanchÂwitness Shri Mangesh Waikar (PW
No.4). The police have recovered gold ornaments weighing one kilogram and silver ornaments/articles weighing fortyÂfive kilograms at the instance
of the appellant from the shop namely Parvati Jewellers, owned by Mr. Mannaram Prajapati situated at Ramtekdi, Pune. The said gold and silver
ornaments was the share of the appellant not only in the present crime, but also from other crimes committed by the appellant alongwith other accused
persons. Shri Mangesh Patil (PW No.1) and Smt. Sandhya Patil (PW No.2) have identified their ornaments such as necklaces and bangles as has
been mentioned in the first information report.Â
6] Thus there is sufficient evidence against the appellant to show his involvement in the present crime. The modusÂoperandi adopted by the appellant
alongwith other accused is undoubtedly serious in nature and does not deserve any leniency, even if certain minor contradictions and/or omissions are
brought on record by the defence. Â
After assessing the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court has not committed any error while convicting
and sentencing the appellant by the impugned Judgment and Order.
7] I find no merits in the present appeal. Appeal is accordingly rejected.
8] Before parting with the judgment, this Court deems it appropriate to place on record a word of appreciation for the efforts put in by Smt. Nasreen
S.K. Ayubi, the learned Counsel appointed for appellant in ablely assisting this Court. Her professional fees are quantified at Rs.5000/ to be paid
to him by the High Court Legal Services Committee. The professional fees be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this
Order.
Office to communicate this order to the appellant who is presently lodged in Yerawada Central Prison, Pune.