Back
2013 Supreme(Bom) 2130
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
T.V. NALAWADE, J.
Sagar s/o. Mallikarjun Mehetre & Others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Another
Criminal Appeal Nos. 359 of 2012, 389 of 2012 & 399 of 2012
Decided On : 18-10-2013
For the Appellants:S.S. Choudhary, Patel Shaikh Ashpak Taher, C.K. Shinde, Advocates.
For the Respondents: R1, D.V. Tele, APP.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Robbery - Section 395 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and provisions of section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the offense of robbery. The court analyzed the evidence of the complainant, identification of the accused, recovery of the stolen vehicle, and the circumstances of the case in relation to the elements of the offense under section 395. The court also referred to the legal principle of substantive evidence and the necessity of corroboration in the absence of a test identification parade.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a taxi driver, was robbed of his vehicle and mobile handset by five persons. The accused were convicted under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The appeals were filed against this judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence provided by the complainant, including his identification of the accused, the recovery of the stolen vehicle, and the circumstances of the incident, was sufficient to prove the offense of robbery under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also considered the legal principle of substantive evidence and the necessity of corroboration in the absence of a test identification parade.
Issues: The issues involved the sufficiency of evidence to prove the offense of robbery under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, the reliability of the complainant's identification of the accused, and the absence of a test identification parade.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the substantive evidence provided by the complainant, along with the circumstances of the case, was sufficient to establish the offense of robbery under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also emphasized the legal principle of substantive evidence and the necessity of corroboration in the absence of a test identification parade.
Final Decision: The appeals were partly allowed, and the substantive sentence given to the appellants was reduced. They were to suffer the imprisonment of the period already undergone and were to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 each. In default of payment of fine, each of them was to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
1. The appeals are filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 19/2011, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, District Osmanabad. All the appellants are convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under section 395 of Indian Penal Code and each of them is sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years. Each appellant is also directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for one year. Both the sides are heard.
2. In short, the factsleading to the institution of the appeals, can be stated as follows:-
The original complainant - Usman Khan owns a jeep of Qualis company bearing AP-13/Q-7494 and at the relevant time, he was using this jeep as taxi. He is resident of Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) and he used to collect passengers from Railway Station of Hyderabad.
3. On 2.6.2011 after 12.00 noon, five persons came to stop of tax and they were searching for taxi as they wanted to go to Gulbarga, Karnataka State. They first went to one Nasir Lahaji, but they did not agree with the hire charges of Rs. 4000/- claimed by Nasir and so, they went to complainant. They agreed to pay hire chares of Rs. 3800/-demanded by the complainant along with allowances.
4. Five persons boarded jeep of complainant and then complainant started towards Gulbarga. On the way, at one toll post, one of the five persons, accused No. 1, introduced himself as the Police Officer of Karnataka State. As he showed the identity card, no toll tax was collected from him. They reached Gulbarga at 5.00 p.m. After reaching Gulbarga, the complainant demanded the fair charges. Five persons gave excuse that their Superior Officer will come there and they created a show of contacting on phone and then they asked the complainant to take the jeep towards Omerga, Maharashtra. When they crossed the distance of 60 k.m. from Gulbarga, the vehicle was stopped. At this point, severe beating was given by five persons to the complainant and they took away the jeep of the complainant in which there was mobile hand set of the complainant.
5. The complainant somehow contacted his family members and informed them about the incident. On 3.6.2011 nephew and sons of complainant reached Omerga. They first searched for the vehicle and when they could not find the vehicle, they went to Omerga Police Station and the complainant gave report to concerned police station. The crime at C.R. No. 105/2011 came to be registered for aforesaid offence on the basis of this report. In the report, he gave the description of the jeep and also of the aforesaid five persons. As the complainant had sustained injuries, he was referred for medical examination.
6. Dilip Jadhav, one A.P.I. was attached to Omerga Police Station. He took over the investigation of the case. He sent the information to all police stations from Maharashtra with description of the jeep. After about one month of the incident, M.I.D.C. Police Station of Solapur (Maharashtra) informed Jadhav that they had seized the vehicle required by Omerga Police Station. R.T.O. number was found to be changed, but on the basis of engine number and chassis number, Jadhav identified the vehicle. In a case of theft, M.I.D.C. police of Solapur had already arrested the four accused from the present case and as the present offence also transpired during the interrogation, they were taken in custody by Jadhav in the present case. Jadhav took over the custody of the jeep from M.I.D.C. Police Station. Jadhav called complainant and after identification of the jeep and the accused in the police station by the complainant, the jeep was handed over to the complainant.
7. A.P.I. Gundile of Omerga Police Station filed the chargesheet against the aforesaid four persons. The remaining accused Javed Ali Khan is shown as absconding accused and chargesheet is filed under section 299 of Cr.P.C. against him. In the Trial Court, all the accused pleaded not guilty. The accused took the defence
