IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.M. BADAR, J.
Amol Vishwas Ovhal - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1472 of 2018 and Criminal Application No. 1979 of 2018
Decided On : 07-10-2019
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 392, 342 and 506 – Appeal Against conviction - First Information Report - Learned Counsel appearing for appellant/accused no. 1- He vehemently argued that no recovery of any looted ornaments is proved against appellant/accused no- 1 - Only evidence against him is Test Identification Parade conducted by PW12 Special Executive Magistrate - Same was conducted on and dummies used in this Test Identification Parade were not of same age - At time of arrest of appellant/accused no- 1 First Informant/PW 4 and his son PW 5 were present - So that Test Identification Parade is of no avail to prosecution - Therefore this evidence is of no assistance to prosecution - It is further argued that panch witnesses used in subject crime by prosecution are interested witnesses - PW3 Mane is neighbour whereas PW7 friend of prosecuting party - Hence their evidence is not reliable - Held, There is evidence regarding recovery of gold ornaments at instance of appellant/accused no- 1 in presence of Panch witness PW 7 - Appellant/accused made confessional statement (Exhibit 75) expressing his willingness to show gold articles given - After recording of his memorandum statement (Exhibit 75) in presence of Panch witness appellant/accused no- 1 - led panch witnesses and police party to Square of area on road - He asked them to stop vehicle in a lane - He then took them to a room and by taking out key kept near door of that room opened door of room - He then produced black colored bag- Said bag was containing gold ornaments along with visiting card of Jewellers - Those articles were then seized vide Panchnama (Exhibit 76) - Thus at instance of appellant/accused looted gold ornaments valued at amount came to be recovered - Those were ornaments looted from Jeweller shop of victim - This evidence definitely incriminates appellant/accused in crime in question - Appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Badar, J.
1. The appellant/accused no. 1, by this appeal, is challenging the judgment and order dated 6th October 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No. 149 of 2013, thereby convicting him and the co-accused of offences punishable under Sections 392, 342 and 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.10,000/- and default sentence of simple imprisonment for 6 months. For the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused no. 1 is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month. For the offence punishable under Section 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused no.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.
2. Facts, in brief, leading to the prosecution of the appellant/accused no. 1 along with co-accused and his resultant conviction, can be summarized thus:
(b) The incident of robbery allegedly took place at the residential house as well as jewellery shop of PW4 Shashiram Mulik at about 10.30 p.m. of 13th March 2012. After closing the shop at 8.30 p.m. of that day, PW4 Shashiram Mulik, his wife PW8 Sharada Mulik and their son PW5 Sachin Mulik were at their bungalow. At about 10.30 p.m., robbers knocked the door of their bungalow. They informed the inmates of the bungalow that they are friends of PW5 Sachin Mulik. That is how, PW4 Shashiram Mulik opened the door of the bungalow. Four robbers then secured their entry in the bungalow of PW4 Shashiram Mulik. They were armed with a weapon like sickle. One of the robbers pushed PW4 Shashiram Mulik and caused his fall on person of PW8 Sharada Mulik. Hearing the abuses given by robbers, PW5 Sachin Mulik came from the bedroom to the hall of the bungalow and noticed four robbers armed with sickles. They assaulted PW5 Sachin Mulik. Thereafter, three robbers took PW5 Sachin Mulik to the jewellery shop located in the front portion of the bungalow and looted gold and silver ornaments from the shop. Those robbers then again returned to the bungalow with PW5 Sachin Mulik and snatched gold chain and ring from PW4 Shashiram Mulik. By entering in the bedroom, the robbers then looted gold and silver ornaments from the locker. They took mobile handsets during the course of robbery. Thereafter, they gagged mouths of PW4 Shashiram Mulik, PW5 Sachin Mulik and PW8 Sharada Mulik by cloth and tied them by tearing bedsheets for the said purpose. Along with the loot, the robbers decamped by latching the front door of the bungalow from outside.
(c) After sometime, PW4 Shashiram Mulik managed to free himself and then he freed his son PW5 Sachin Mulik and his wife PW8 Sharada Mulik. PW5 Sachin Mulik then gave call to PW3 Shantaram Mane who was residing in the neighbourhood. Said PW3 Shantaram Mane then opened the front door of the bungalow. PW5 Sachin Mulik then telephonically called his friend PW7 Sunil Lambe and asked him to inform the incident of robbery to police. Accordingly, police were informed about the incident. Within a short span of time, PW7 Sunil Lambe as well as police visited Suyog bungalow where the robbery took place.
(d) As PW5 Sachin Mulik was injured in the incident, he was sent to the Civil Hospital, Sangli, for treatment. PW13 Dr. Reshma Jadhav examined him. PW4 Shashiram Mulik lodged report with Police Station Vishram Baug, Sangli, which has resulted in registration of Crime No. 38 of 2012 for
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.