1. Criminal Appeal No.975 of 2015 is by the appellant who was accused no.1 before the learned trial court where as Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2012 is by the appellant who was original accused no.3 before the learned trial court. It is seen that, though Sessions case bearing No.573 of 2010 arising out of Crime No.92 of 2010 registered against these appellants and other co-accused was heard by the learned trial court, at the stage of recording statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant/accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale absconded, and therefore, initially said Sessions case bearing no.573 of 2010 came to be decided on 24th January 2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by separating trial of appellant/accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale. While deciding the said sessions case on 24th January 2012, the appellant/ accused no.3 Anand Raimokar came to be convicted of the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.6,000/- and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months. Hence, this appeal bearing no.386 of 2012 by convicted appellant/accused no.3 Anand Raimokar. Subsequently, appellant/ accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale came to be apprehended and after recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) and after hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his judgment and order dated 20th August 2015 in the said Sessions Case No.573 of 2010, has been pleased to convict the appellant/accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale of the offence punishable under Section 394 of the IPC and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. That is how Criminal Appeal bearing no.975 of 2015 came to be filed by him challenging his conviction and sentence. As evidence in the matter is common, though judgments are delivered on different dates, both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Briefly stated, facts leading to the institution of the present appeals at the instance of appellant/accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale and appellant/accused no.3 Anand Raimokar are thus:

(a) First informant/PW1 Vandana Ugale is resident of Gujarmala in Shirur Taluka of Pune District. Her family comprises of her husband – PW2 Daulat Ugale and two sons by name Aadesh and Rushikesh.

(b) After having dinner on 17th March 2010, the first informant PW1 Vandana Ugale and her family members slept at about 10.30 p.m. The first informant/PW1 Vandana Ugale woke up at about 2 a.m. in the night intervening 17th March 2010 and 18th March 2010 to see one person standing near the cupboard, whereas another waiting at the door of the house. Being frightened, she cried loudly awakening her family members. One of the culprits took keys of the locker from her husband on the point of knife. The robbers then opened locker of the cupboard and took out money and ear rings. Thereafter they had forcibly taken mangalsutra (mini ganthan) from the first informant PW1 Vandana Ugale and also snatched her mobile phone. While on their way out, as PW2 Daulat Ugale followed them, robbers assaulted him by means of iron rod. When PW1 Vandana Ugale attempted to save her husband, she was also assaulted. After looting gold ornaments, mobile phone and cash amounting to Rs.5,000/-, robbers fled from the spot.

(c) PW1 Vandana Ugale then accompanied by her husband PW2 Daulat Ugale immediately went to Police Station Shirur and lodged report Exhibit 61, at about 3.45 a.m. of 18th March 2010. Accordingly, Crime No. 92 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the IPC came to be registered against unknown robbers. The investigation was then set in motion. During the course of investigation, with the help of PW4 Atmaram Dighe – panch witness, spot of the incident came to be i