SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Bom) 1417

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
K.R. SHRIRAM, J.
State of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Shivaji Haribhau Jirase - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 424 of 1996
Decided On : 11-11-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Pallavi Dabholkar, Adv.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 392 - Committed Theft - Threatened to Kill - Accused committed theft of wrist watch and cash of Rs.25/- from the possession of complainant by brandishing a knife and threatening to kill him if he did not part with it - According to prosecution, complainant was going to visit a friend on his two wheeler and accused waved to him to stop and requested for lift - Complainant gave accused lift but after going some distance, accused asked complainant to stop the two wheeler, brandished a khanjar threatened to kill him if he did not hand over his watch and money and snatched wrist watch of Citizen Quartz make worth about Rs.1500/- and also cash from complainant - Accused then told complainant to go away from the spot without even looking back - Complainant, as he feared for his life, without any protest left the spot, then went home and thereafter went to Laxmipuri Police Station and reported PW-7 reduced complaint in writing (Exhibit 15) at about 21:30 hours registered crime and issued FIR - Held, Prosecution has proved the fact that accused robbed original complainant - PW-2, or accused was found with offending dagger or wrist watch was found in the house of accused - Though Trial Court has not in detail dealt with these points but has come to its conclusion on various other factors, I will not find any fault with Trial Courts order of acquittal - When the evidence adduced did not conclusively lead to guilt of accused and only pointed needle of suspicion towards the accused and nothing more, he cannot be committed because suspicion is no substitute for proof in criminal trial - there is double presumption in favour of accused - Firstly, presumption of innocence available to accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law - Secondly, the accused having secured acquittal, the presumption of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. For acquitting the accused, the Trial Court observed that the prosecution - Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

K R SHRIRAM, J.

1. Accused was charged under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that at about 8.30 p.m. on 16th October 1992 at Laxtirtha Vasahat, Kolhapur accused committed theft of wrist watch and cash of Rs.25/- from the possession of complainant - Suresh Shivaji Raval by brandishing a knife and threatening to kill him if he did not part with it. According to the prosecution, complainant - Suresh Shivaji Raval was going to visit a friend on his two wheeler and accused waved to him to stop and requested for lift. Complainant gave accused lift but after going some distance, accused asked complainant to stop the two wheeler, brandished a khanjar (a kind of knife), threatened to kill him if he did not hand over his watch and money and snatched the wrist watch of Citizen Quartz make worth about Rs.1500/- and also cash of Rs.25/- from complainant. Accused then told complainant to go away from the spot without even looking back. Complainant, as he feared for his life, without any protest left the spot, then went home and thereafter went to Laxmipuri Police Station and reported the matter vide Exhibit 15. P.S.I. - Ramakant Keraba Mane (PW-7) reduced the complaint in writing (Exhibit 15) at about 21:30 hours on 16th October 1992, registered the crime and issued the FIR. Time gap between the offence and registering the FIR was only one hour.

2. It is also stated that on 16th October 1992, i.e., the date of offence, Police Head Constable - Shete, Badge No.1813, who was on patrolling duty at Rankala Tower area, alongwith his staff, saw accused asking for lift from persons passing by in their vehicles. Since the said Shete (PW-6) found the actions of accused rather suspicious, he went to enquire with accused what he was doing. Accused, on seeing PW-6, ran away from the spot and PW-6 chased accused and caught him. When physical search of the accused was taken, one dagger was found in possession of accused. PW-6 has also stated that at that stage Police Constable - Sunil Ingavale and Police Constable - Kishor Patil were also with him on patrolling duty. These two police constables have not been examined by the prosecution. Then accused was taken to Laxmipuri Police Station and produced before the P.S.I., i.e., Ramakant Keraba Mane (PW-7).

3. PW-6 in his examination in chief stated that on enquiry they came to know that accused had committed some offences. Thereafter, two panch witnesses, PW-1 - Rajendra Ashok Mudholkar and another, who was not examined, were called to the police station to record the seizure panchnama for the knife and in their presence personal search of accused was taken. In the panchnama, PW-1 has stated that accused was wearing a pant and shirt and underwear and one knife and cash amount of Rs.265/- only was found in his custody. The knife was in leather cover, which was sharp on both sides and was 9 inches long alongwith handle. The length of the blade was 5 inches long and it was old one. Police took custody of the knife for investigation. The panchnama is supposed to have been taken at 22.30 hours and completed at 22.40 hours. There is no mention of wrist watch.

4. In cross examination, PW-1 has stated that it was around 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. when police started preparing the seizure panchnama. I would give a benefit of doubt because the panchnama is dated 16th October 1992, whereas the evidence has been recorded on 4th January1996. At the same time, I have to note that the prosecution has to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt. This personal search of accused should have been taken when he was chased and caught by PW-6. PW-6 stated that around 10.00 p.m. on 16th October 1992 he had gone to Rankala Tower area where he saw one person was asking for lift from persons passing by in vehicles and he felt it rather suspicious and when he made enquiry, the said person ran away and he chased the person, caught him on the spot and he found a dagger. That is the time, at which, I would have exp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top