Vishwanath and Others vs The State of Maharashtra

M.T. Joshi, J.—Aggrieved by the conviction for the offences punishable u/s 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants in Criminal Appeal no. 283 of 2011 as well as appellant in Criminal Appeal no. 305 of 2011 have preferred the present Appeals. Appellant (original accused no. 11) Pramod Saundankar in Criminal Appeal no. 260 of 2011 was convicted in the same trial for the offence punishable u/s 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. In all 10 accused were convicted for the offences punishable u/s 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Out of them, accused no. 10 Sk. Javed Sk. Maheboob did not prefer any Appeal. Thus, except him, all the accused convicted and sentenced for the offences as described above, are before this Court. The appellants would be termed as accused as arrayed before the learned Sessions Judge.

The prosecution case in short is as under:-

� A dacoity has occurred in the house of P.W. 4 Complainant Rameshchandra Sawarmal Bagdiaya in the night between 17th July 2009 and 18th July, 2009 at about 1.00 pm. in his house situated at Akola Road, Hingoli. In all six people had entered the house by breaking open the channel gate of the entrance with knife, dagger etc. in their hands. They had threatened the complainant and his wife Kirandevi and forced them to give the keys of almirah. Therefrom, they took away the gold, silver ornaments as well as valuables amounting to 8,75,000/-.

� During investigation, all the 10 accused were arrested at different point of time from the information received from the accused already arrested. All the 10 accused were placed for test identification parade at different point of time in batches, as per their arrest. They were identified by the complainant. Further, all of them had made a statement leading to the recovery of various articles from different places, including the houses of the respective accused-appellant. So far as accused no. 11 i.e. the appellant in Criminal Appeal no. 283 of 2011 is concerned, he is prosecuted for the offence of knowingly receiving the stolen property, having reason to believe that the same has been stolen. Appellant no. 8 i.e. accused no. 8 Shivaji Kale in Criminal Appeal no. 283 of 2011 made a statement which ultimately led to the recovery of four silver chips from the possession of this appellant, he being the jeweller of Jawala Bazar.

Before the learned Sessions Judge, in all 20 witnesses were examined. They included the complainant, various witnesses to the statement made by the various appellants leading to the recovery of the respective articles, Special Executive Magistrate as well as the panch witnesses, as regards the evidence of test identification parade and Investigating Officers-P.W. 20 P.I. of Local Crime Branch Shaikh Abdul Rauf a leading Investigating Officer. While most of the panch witnesses as regards the recovery evidence except P.W. 16 and P.W. 10 who spoke about the recovery made by accused no. 6 Roshan and accused no. 9 Sanjay alias Kaliya respectively, turned hostile to the prosecution. Complainant P.W. 4 failed to identify any of the accused nos. 1 to 10 in the witness box, though it is claimed that he has identified all of them during the test identification parade.

The learned Sessions Judge, however, believed the prosecution case on the ground that the complainant was apprehensive in the witness box. Further, his cross-examination would show that there was high level of increase in sugar, while he was deposing in the witness box. Therefore, his non-identification of the accused nos. 1 to 10 in the witness box, according to learned Sessions Judge, would not lead to disbelieve the prosecution case. Further, as regards the recovery evidence, the same was believed and, therefore all the accused came to be convicted.

The learned counsel for the accused nos. 1 to 9 submitted before me that the Court failed to take into consideration that the substantive evidence of identification in the Court hall was absent and there was no independent witness except about two accused, as referred above about the recovery evidence. Besides this, pointing number of infirmities in the prosecution case, like delay in holding of test identification parades, non-examination of watchman-Sheshrao who was claimed to be present at the time of occurrence and the alleged recovery statement said to have been made after a period of four to five months of the incident, the learned counsels wanted that the Appeals be allowed.

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the complainant P.W. 4 has given a plausible explanation for inability in identifying the accused nos. 1 to 10 in the Court hall. He further submitted that due to election duty of the Executive Magistrate, the identification parades could not be held immediately. He further submitted that large number of valuables are recovered by the Police from the accused persons. It thus cannot be said that those valuables were foisted upon the respective accused by the Police. In the circumstances, he submitted that the Appeals be dismissed.

On the basis of this material, following points arise for my determination:

(I) Whether the prosecution has proved that the original accused nos. 1 to 9 i.e. the present appellants before me have participated in the commission of dacoity at the residence of the complainant, by using deadly weapons?

(II) Whether the prosecution has further proved that accused no. 11 Pramod Saundankar had received the stolen property belonging to the complainant, knowingly or having reason to believe that the same has been transferred by the commission of dacoity?

My findings to above points are in the affirmative. All the Appeals are therefore dismissed for the reasons to follow.

REASONS:

The immediately filed complaint of P.W. 4 would reveal that three finger rings, one mangalasutra (gold necklace), one gold locket, two gold bangles, two ear tops, one gold bar weighing three tolas (30 gm), one ladies finger ring, two thick bangles (patlya), silver chips weighing 1 Kg., 150 silver coins and cash of Rs. 1,93,000/- were taken away by the dacoits.

Accused no. 1 Vishwanath was arrested by Investigating Officer i.e. P.W. 11 Shaikh Noor Mohammad after four months i.e. on 13.11.2009. Only thereafter, the rest of the accused came to be arrested. Immediately after their arrest, according to the prosecution, each of these accused nos. 1 to 10 made statements leading to the recovery of valuables like silver chips, pair of bangles and ring, ear tops. According to the prosecution, these valuables were kept by the respective accused in their house or concealed at some other places like field. The panch witnesses to this exercise except the exercise as regards accused no. 6 Roshan and accused no. 9 Sanjay alias Kaliya turned hostile.

On the strength of this fact, the learned counsels for the appellants vociferously submitted that when the recovery evidence could not be proved from the mouth of an independent witness, the learned Sessions Judge ought not have believed the same.

It is however to be noted that accused no. 1 Vishwanath was arrested on 13.11.2009, who is said to have made a statement leading to recovery of silver brick on 26.11.2009 from his own house.

Thereafter, different accused came to be arrested on the basis of the information received during the interrogation made by the Police with this accused. Accused no. 5 Khetrya was arrested on 15.2.2010. According to the prosecution, he made a statement leading to the recovery of pair of bangles, ring jaded with stones and five silver coins at article 48/1/2 which has been identified by the complainant in the Court. Besides this, according to the prosecution, specific ornaments like ear-tops and rings etc. were also recovered on the basis of statement made by accused no. 9 Sanjay alias Kaliya after the arrest on 15.12.2010.

As already pointed out while description of all the looted property was given in the FIR at exhibit 44, immediately after the dacoity of 18.7.2009, large number of same valuable gold and silver articles came to be recovered at different point of time. The learned Sessions Judge believed the testimony of Investigating Officer in this regard.

In the circumstances, though the panch witnesses to all these recovery panchanamas (except 2) did not support the prosecution case, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respective accused had made statements leading to the recovery of the valuable articles which were identified by the complainant in the Court.

This takes us to consider the case of identification of the accused persons. As regards accused nos. 1 to 4, while they were arrested in the month of November, 2009, their test identification parade was held on 30.12.2009. While one of the panch witness i.e. P.W. 2 Nagorao, to the test identification parade turned hostile, P.W. 8 Manoj Sharma, another panch witness has generally supported the prosecution case. He however, admitted in cross-examination that he himself alongwith the previous hostile panch Nagorao were working with the complainant during the relevant period. In the circumstances, it was argued that even the identification during the test identification parade is doubtful. It should, however, be noted that inspite of the fact of P.W. 2 Nagorao is working with the complainant, still, he did not support the prosecution that in his presence complainant Rameshchandra had identified accused nos. 1 to 4.

As regards accused no. 5 Khetrya, accused no. 6-Roshan, accused no. 7-Kiran and accused no. 8-Shivaji, panch to test identification parade is P.W. 17 Jagdish Sharma. He is also the employee of complainant Rameshchandra. Though, he deposed that in the test identification parade, his employee has identified the respective accused persons, he does not know the contents of the panchanama and further deposed that he cannot remember the names which were told by the respective accused persons.

For test identification parade of accused no. 9 Sanjay, panch was very same P.W. 8 Manoj Sharma.

From all this evidence on record, it is clear that the panch witnesses to the exercise of test identification parade were the employees of the complainant. Generally, they had supported the prosecution case that the complainant has identified the accused persons in the test identification parade, though they failed to give specific details as detailed supra. Above all, the complainant could not identify any of the accused nos. 1 to 10 from the witness box.

The learned counsel for the respective appellants/accused relied on the ratio of the following cases:

1) Ramu Dhanbahadur Thapa Vs. State of Maharashtra 2007 (1) Mah. L.J. (Cri.) 654.

2) Chhabya Dhondya Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra 2001 (2) LJ SOFT 76.

3) Ankush Bansi Wagh and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 (12) LJ SOFT 87.

In the case of Ramu Thapa (cited supra) the facts were that the dacoity had occurred at the spot where there were ornaments and the complainant did not assert in the examination-in-chief, that he was in a position to see the assailant. In the circumstances, the fact that the accused persons were identified by the witnesses in Court was held to be of no avail to the prosecution. Further, there was unexplained delay in the test identification parade. In all these circumstances, the prosecution case in this regard was not believed.

In the case of Chhabya Dhondya (cited supra), admittedly the eye witnesses failed to identify the robbers due to the darkness. The appellant therein however was in custody for 11 years and the recovery at his behest was not challenged by him. Therefore, holding that he was in possession of certain articles for which he has no explanation, he was convicted for minor offence and was released.

In the case of Ankush Bansi Wagh (cited supra) there was delay in holding the test identification parade and the witnesses admitted that they had an opportunity to interact with each others after the rounds of identification parade were held. Further, it was the prosecution case itself that the dacoits before entering the house, had broken the electric bulbs. In the circumstances, the prosecution case was not believed.

In the present case before us, the complaint shows that the unknown dacoits had entered the house with torches with them. They first made enquiry about the keys of the almirah. Thereafter, they took out all the articles from it and carried valuables only with them. Thus, there was sufficient opportunity for the complainant to watch the dacoits. As regards the delay in holding the test identification parade, as regards accused nos. 1 to 4, the test identification parade was held just within six weeks of their arrest, though arrest could be made after four months of the incident. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was a deliberate delay in holding the test identification parade.

As regards the test identification parade of accused nos. 5 to 8, while they were arrested in the month of February, 2010, the test identification parade was held on 13th May, 2010. P.W. 13 Naib Tahsildar Anandrao Salonke, who has held the test identification parade deposed in his cross-examination, that due to election period, he could not arrange the test identification parade earlier. Thus, the delay in holding the test identification parade is explained. As regards the accused no. 9 Sanjay alias Kaliya arrested on 15.12.2009, the test identification parade was held on 21.1.2010. In the circumstances, there was no delay in conducting the same.

The learned counsel for the appellants/accused however vociferously submitted that since the complainant failed to identify any of the accused from the witness box, a substantive evidence regarding the identification of the accused is absent in the present case. According to them, the identification during the test identification parade is merely a step in the investigation and cannot be called a substantive piece of evidence.

It is generally true that the identification of the person as the perpetrator of the crime, by the person who has opportunity to watch him during that period in the Court would be a substantive piece of evidence. In the present case, however, what we find is that the complainant, a 65 years old man entered the witness box. The learned Sessions Judge has opportunity to note his demeanor, as is found in the judgment. It would show that the complainant was very apprehensive. Besides, he explained that due to the sudden rise in the sugar, he being a diabetic, he was not able to see properly in the Court hall and, therefore, was unable to identify any of the accused. He was however emphatic that in the past, during the test identification parade, he had identified the very dacoits. It is the prosecution case that the watchman was confined by tying his hands outside of the house before entry of dacoits in the house. In the circumstances, non-examination of the said watchman would not lead us to the conclusion that the prosecution case is false.

As already pointed out, large quantity of valuable articles were seized at different point of time. Further, arrest of one accused lead to the arrest of another one. Further, only due to the sudden rise in the sugar in the blood of the old complainant, he was unable to identify the accused persons in the Court hall. Delay in holding one of the test identification parade is duly explained.

In all these circumstances, according to me, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly concluded that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the present accused nos. 1 to 10 have committed the dacoity, with deadly weapons.

As regards the accused no. 11, it is to be noted that he is jeweller by occupation. Accused no. 8 Shivaji Kale was arrested on 2.2.2010 from Wapi, Gujrat. According to the prosecution, the said accused made a statement that he has sold four silver chips to the present appellant/accused. Those silver chips, according to the P.W. 20 P.I. Shaikh Abdul Rauf, were recovered from the present appellant. Panch witness to the memorandum of statement as well as the recovery panchanama, namely, P.W. 2 Nagorao and P.W. 3 Gajanan both of them have turned hostile, though employees of the complainant.

The learned Sessions Judge, has believed the straightforward testimony of the Investigating Officer i.e. Police Inspector, who has given the chronological account of the events.

It was alternatively submitted on behalf of the accused, that even if it is held that the present accused have received the property from accused no. 8 Shivaji, yet it cannot be said that he has knowledge that the property was a stolen property. It may however, be noted that this appellant-accused is the jeweller by occupation and he has received four silver chips from an ordinary person. In the circumstances, this very fact shows that the present appellant had knowledge that the property must not have been a normal property. In the circumstances, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge in this regard also cannot be faulted with.

The learned counsels however alternatively submitted that since only evidence regarding recovery of valuables at the behest of the concerned accused persons is there, they cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 395 or 397 of the Indian Penal Code and at the most the conviction could be u/s 412 of the Indian Penal Code.

� In support of the proposition, the learned counsels for the appellants/accused relied on the following authorities:

(i) Pandurang @ Sanjay Gangaram Pawar @ Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra 2004 (8) LJ SOFT 50.

(ii) Vijay Dadasaheb Bhosle and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2006 (12) LJ SOFT 252.

(iii) Amit Dattatraya Dighe Vs. State of Maharashtra 2009 (1) LJ SOFT 43.

� In all these cases however, the Court has come to the conclusion that the identity of the accused as a dacoit was not proved and only material available against the accused was of recovery of valuables at his instance. In the present case, however, we find that the prosecution has proved that the respective accused has committed dacoity. Therefore, the argument cannot be accepted. In the result, all the Appeals fail and are therefore dismissed accordingly.

Accused no. 3/appellant no. 3-Kathalu alias Sigret Sahebrao Pawar in Criminal Appeal no. 283 of 2011 and accused no. 11/appellant no. 11-Pramod Bhanudas Saundankar in Criminal Appeal no. 260 of 2011 being already released on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and they shall surrender before the concerned Court to serve the sentence.