The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborated evidence, especially in cases where the main prosecution story is rendered unbelievable.

Abhay M. Thipsay, J.(Oral) –

The appellants were the accused Nos.1 and 3 respectively in Sessions Case No.423/09 tried by the Addl. Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai. They were prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under section 399 of the IPC and 402 of the IPC r/w section 34 of the IPC, as also the offences punishable under the Arms Act and the Bombay Police Act (now, Maharashtra Police Act). The learned Addl. Sessions Judge found them not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 399 of the IPC and 402 of the IPC, and acquitted them of the said offences. He also found them not guilty of an offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act r/w Section 37(1)(a) thereof. He, however, held them guilty of offences punishable under the Arms Act. He convicted the appellant no.1 of an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act r/w section 3 thereof and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 2(two) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. He convicted the appellant No. 2 of an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act r/w section 4 thereof, and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellants being aggrieved by their conviction in respect of the aforesaid offences and the sentences imposed upon them, had approached this Court by way of the present Appeal.

2. Though the matter was appearing on board for final hearing, none appeared for the appellants when the matter was called out. On an earlier occasion also, though the matter was listed on board and was called out, none had appeared for the appellants. Under these circumstances, the Appeal is being decided after going through the Record and Proceedings, and more particularly, the evidence adduced during the trial and the impugned judgment; and after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3. The prosecution case, as put forth before the trial court, was that Mahadev Nimbalkar (PW 5) API attached to DCB CID, Unit-8 received certain secret information on 15th January 2009. The information was to the effect that some persons had made preparations to commit dacoity, and that, they were armed with weapons at a jewellery shop near Chetana College, Bandra (East). Nimbalkar narrated the information to his superiors, where-after a trap was arranged. Two persons – Kalim Shaikh and Akram Shaikh – were called to act as panchas during the trap. When the police party and the panchas were waiting at the busstop near Chetana College, the culprits arrived on the spot by two different rickshaws. They were totally five. They were attempted to be apprehended, but only three of them could be apprehended, and the remaining two ran away. The appellants are said to be two of the three persons who were caught. A revolver with two live cartridges was allegedly found with the appellant no.1 Laxman, whereas one 'Sura' was allegedly found with the appellant no.2 Iliyaj.

4. The prosecution examined totally six witnesses during the trial. All of them are policemen. The panch witnesses who were associated with the trap, were not examined.

5. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not believe the story of the prosecution to the effect that the appellants and the other accused had made preparations to commit dacoity and had assembled at a particular place for the purpose of committing dacoity. It may be observed that the story of the prosecution was that the conversation between the appellants was heard by the police party and the panchas by going closer to them, and that this conversation was to the effect that one of them was telling the others that the jewellery shop situated there, was to be robbed. The story is too artificial, and in my opinion, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was right in disbelieving such a story.

6. The question is whether when the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for valid and sound reasons, doubted the version of the prosecution which was t