The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a proper identification process in criminal cases, the duty of the defense to confront witnesses with previous statements, and the trial judge's approach in appreciating the evidence.

JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---The appellants are assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 539 of 1993 wherein appellant Navin Purushottam Shetty has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo S.I. for 7 days for the offence punishable under section 392 of I.P.C. He has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence punishable under the provisions of section 397 of I.P.C. He has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default S.I. for 3 days. Appellant Bhaskar Virappa Kanchan has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo S.I. for 7 days for the offence punishable under section 392 of I.P.C. He has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default S.I. for 3 days for the offence punishable under section 452 of I.P.C.

2. These two appellants were tried before the trial Court mentioned above along with other three co-accused, namely, Ejaj Badshah Shaikh, Rashid @ Mamit Abdul Majid Ansair and Sayyed. Their appeals are not before this Court today for hearing.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that P.W. 1 Ghevarchand Sonaji Jain runs a courier business under the style "Maruti Express Service Pvt. Ltd.,". Rajendra Ganpat Lalji Sharma was at the relevant time in his employment as servant and was working in his said shop which was the subject matter of the said dacoity. On 8-9-1991 at about 6.15 p.m. P.W. 1 Ghevarchand Sonaji Jain was in his cabin of the shop and his employees, namely Rajendra Sharma, Manojkumar Mehta were working in his shop. As per the prosecution case, at that time one person entered in shop and dragged P.W. 2 Manojkumar Mehta, P.W. Rajendra Sharma at the point of weapons and by pointing a chopper towards P.W. 1 Ghevarchand Sonaji Jain, took away cash belonging to him to the tune of Rs. 55,000/-. At that time some persons were standing outside the cabin. After looting the said cash from him, those persons started to run away who were chased by some of the prosecution witnesses and the members of the public. They could not be caught, P.W. 1 Ghevarchand Sonaji Jain logged his F.I.R. in L.T. Marg Police Station which was recorded by P.I Naik P.W. 4 and crime was registered against three unknown persons under C.R. No. 199 of 1991. Accused No. 1 Ejaj was arrested on 16-10-1992. Accused Rashid was arrested on 20-10-1992. The appellant Navin Purushottam Shetty was arrested on 23-10-1992 and appellant Bhaskar Kanchan was also arrested near about the same day. Appellant Navin Shetty was put to identification parade on 24-10-1992 and as per prosecution case was identified by P.W. 1 Ghevarchand Sonaji Jain, by P.W. Manojkumar Mehta and P.W. Rajendra Sharma, appellant Navin Shetty has been identified by those witnesses as the person who took away Rs. 55,000/- from P.W. 1 Ghevarchand Sonaji Jain by showing him the chopper. They identified Bhaskar Kanchan as the person who was with him and associate of Shetty at that time. The learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the guilt of these two appellants in respect of the offences referred to above. In view of that he passed the order of conviction and sentence which is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals.

4. Shri Patne, Counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the prosecution witnesses P.W. 1 Ghevarchand Sonaji Jain, Rajendra Sharma and Manojkumar Mehta had no sufficient opportunity to observe the faces and features of the dacoits and, therefore, the identification made by them after four months, was not believable. He also submitted that those witnesses had seen these appellants in earlier parade also and this point was ignored by the learned trial Judge. He submitted that the identification parade was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document