2. This is an Appeal filed by the accused, who was tried in Sessions Case No. 46 of 2011.

3. He has been convicted by the judgment and order dated 16th December, 2011, passed by learned Extra Jt. (Ad-hoc) District Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge, Baramati, which reads as under:

"ORDER

Accused is hereby convicted u/s. 235 of Cr.P.C., for the offence u/sec. 395 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for the period of Ten years with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, i/d to suffer S.I. for One year.

He is convicted u/s. 235 of Cr.P.C., for the offence u/s. 52 of Railway Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for the period of Five years. He is convicted u/s. 235 of Cr.P.C., for the offence u/s. 332 of I.P.C and sentenced to suffer R.I. for the period of Three years with a fine of Rs.500/-, i/d to suffer S.I. for One month.

He is also convicted u/s. 235 of Cr.P.C., for the offence u/s. 3 rw 25 of Arms Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for period of One year with a fine of Rs.500/-, id to suffer S.I. for Fifteen days.

He is acquitted under sec. 232 of Cr.P.C. for the offence under sec. 353 of IPC.

All the sentences are to run concurrently.

Set off be given for the period from 24-5-10 to 23-6-10, during which he was in the custody.

Muddemal articles i.e. pistol be returned to police constable Patil and sickle be sent to District Magistrate."

(Quoted from Page 78 of the Appeal)

4. The charge was that the Appellant is one amongst other 10 accused persons, who had committed robbery in the railway bogie. All other accused fled away. The Appellant is the only accused, who was caught on the spot.

5. The robbery is claimed to be of ornament - Mangalsutra belonging to Mahadevi Arvind Nikambe, PW3.

6. The incident occurred at mid night of 23rd and 24th May, 2010 at 1.00 p.m. The mangalsutra of PW3 was snatched by the accused by inserting his hand through the window of the bogie. She claims that she has seen the accused, who had inserted hand through the window of the bogie and the hand was caught by other witness. She claims that she has seen the accused because the incident continued for quite some time.

7. The Prosecution has examined the following witnesses:

P.W No.1 - Shri Vijay Dinkar Patil

P. W No.2 - Shri Gokul Shivdash Sonawani

P. W No.3 - Ms. Mahadevi Arvind Nikambe

P. W No.4 - Shri Allauddin Ibrahim Bagwan

P.W No.5 - Shri Sagar Namdeo Waghmare

P.W No.6 - Shri Madhav Dagadoba Yadav

P.W. No.7 - Dr. Shirish Nilkanth Kumthekar

P.W No.8 - Dr. N.K. Sajeev

P. W No.9 - Shri Harpalsinh Erasinh Sengar

8. PW3 is the only witness of the incident. PW7 and PWS, who are medical witnesses, and all other witnesses are either witnesses of arrest, lodgment of FIR, Investigation etc.

9. On 24th May, 2010, PW8 Dr. N.K. Sajeev had examined the injured Shri Vijay Oinkar Pati, PW I, who is working as constable with Daund Railway and the injured Shri Gokul Shivdash Sonawani, PW2, who is Inspector of Railway Police.

10. PW7 Dr. Shirish Nilkanth Kumthekar had given medical treatment to Mahadevi Arvind Nikambe, PW3 on 7th August, 2013.

11. These two medical witnesses i.e. PW7 and PWS are of no use, since they did not prove anything that is incriminating against appellant.

12. The entire case rests on testimony of PW3.

13. It is pertinent to note that incident has occurred on 24th May, 2010 and FIR was registered on the same day i.e. 24th May, 2010 by Vijay Oinkar Patil, who is PW1.

14. Version of PW 1 does not reveal as to whose ornament was snatched and even the Investigating Officer does not say whether he came to know that PW3 was the person whose mangalsutra was snatched.

15. PW9 admits that PW3 Mahadevi Arvind Nikambe's statement was recorded on 17th September, 2010.

16. The learned advocate Mr. D.G Khamkar appointed as Amicus Curie for the accused has argued that:

(a) The entire prosecution story is based on totally uncertain and fishy story.

(b) No identification parade was conducted.

(c) It is a mystery as to why Mahadevi Arvind Nikambe was not traced for practically 4 months.

(d) The ent