The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper identification parades and the application of the presumption of guilt based on immediate possession of stolen property.

Headnote:
Identification Parade - Criminal Law - Section 392, Section 397 of I.P.C. - A brief summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court includes the rules for holding identification parades, the authenticity of identification parade, and the presumption under section 114(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court highlighted the importance of proper identification parades and the need for evidence to create confidence in the judicial mind. The court also discussed the presumption of guilt based on immediate possession of stolen property and the minimum sentence for robbery on the highway.
Fact of the Case:

The prosecution alleged that the appellants committed robbery by snatching diamonds worth Rs. 80 lacs from the complainant. The appellants denied the allegations and pleaded for acquittal.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence from the identification parade was insufficient for conviction. It also concluded that the stolen diamonds were proved to have been stolen in the robbery and that the appellants were in immediate possession of the stolen diamonds, leading to the presumption of their guilt. The court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence.
Issues: The issues included the authenticity of the identification parade, the ownership of the stolen diamonds, and the minimum sentence for the robbery on the highway.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence from the identification parade was insufficient for conviction. It also applied the presumption under section 114(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to conclude the guilt of the appellants based on their immediate possession of the stolen diamonds.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both the appeals, confirmed the order of conviction and sentence, and ordered the return of the stolen diamonds to the complainant.

JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---Heard the Counsel for the parties in context with the evidence on record as well as the judgment which has been assailed by these appeals. Both these appeals are disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same Sessions Case.

2. Both the appeals are hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 1105 of 1992 by which they have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinbelow.

3. Appellant Machindra @ Vijay Hajare has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 392 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and appellant Mangesh Solkar has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 392 read with section 397 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that the P.W. Kirit Kothari had collected four packets of deluxe variety of diamonds worth Rs. 80 lacs for selling it to a prospective customer and when he was walking on foot at M.S. Patkar Marg on 22-4-1991 at about 6.15 p.m., both the appellants and their associates stopped him by showing the knives and out of them Mangesh Solkar snatched out the bag which was containing diamonds in it. Both the appellant thereafter left the scene by riding on the scooter which was being driven by appellant Vijay Hajare. P.W. Kirit Kothari lodged a report in Gamdevi Police Station. Investigation proceeded in which it was revealed that Vijay Hajare had handed over diamonds to some of the prosecution witnesses by bluffing and posing himself to be a broker in purchasing and selling diamonds. After completion of investigation, the appellants were tried before the trial Judge who passed the order of conviction and sentence against them which has been assailed by these appeals.

5. The appellants took the defence of denial. They did not contend that the diamonds were belonging to them. They contended that they were falsely implicated in the present case. They pleaded for acquittal.

6. Shri Naik, Counsel appearing for the appellants, firstly criticized the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of identification parade held by Shri Vichare in the office of D.C.B., C.I.D. He submitted that the appellants cannot be said to be the persons participating in the said alleged incident and the identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses cannot be believed and cannot be taken to be the basis for conviction. He submitted that even according to the evidence of Kirit Kothari he had very little opportunity of seeing the faces and features of those culprits because according to his evidence he could see the person who was riding on the scooter when he had turned his face. Shri Naik submitted that the identification of Mangesh Solkar cannot be believed because P.W. Kirit Kothari has stated in his evidence that at the time of the said incident he was very much frightened. He further submitted that his evidence shows that he must have been panicky. Shri Shingarpure submitted that the identification parade has been properly held in this case though it has been held in the building of C.B.D., C.I.D., Mumbai. He submitted that the identification of the appellants should be accepted for basing the conviction because the evidence of Kirit Kothari is clinching on this point.

7. This Court has time and again said that the identification parade should be taken in accordance with the Rules made for holding the identification parades. The dummies should be selected properly and one accused should be kept for identification by mixing the appropriate number of dummies. In holding the identification parade, necessary care has to be taken for seeing that the persons to be identified in the identification parade should not be seen by the identifying witnesses prior to identification parade and the evidence adduced by the prosecution on that point should be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document