The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, the detailed and credible evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimony of police witnesses and the pancha witness, met this standard.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellants were the original accused Nos.1 to 4 in Sessions Case No.482/2008. Accused No.5 was discharged and accused No.6 was absconding. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Special Judge under the MCOC Act, Greater Mumbai vide his judgment and order dtd. 6/3/2014 convicted and sentenced the appellants as follows :

i. The appellants were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 399 of IPC and were sentenced to suffer RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1000.00 and in default to suffer further RI for three months.

ii. It was observed that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 had undergone the sentence and accused No.4 was granted set off under Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C.

The appellants have challenged this order in the present appeal.

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is as follows : PW-1 Ramesh Bhokare was a Constable attached to Crime Branch. On 26/4/2008 he received a secret information that some persons were to assemble near Govindram Lacchi Snacks and Veg. Hotel for committing dacoity at a jewellers shop at Kalbadevi. He informed the superiors and arrangement was made to lay a trap. At about 3.15 p.m., three persons came near that hotel. After about 15 minutes, two more persons came there on motorcycle and joined them. They went inside the hotel. PW-1 followed them there. He sat close to them. He overheard their plan to commit robbery in Prakash Gold Palace. All these persons came out. One of them started going towards the jewelers shop. Four persons remained near the hotel. The raiding party apprehended them immediately. The fifth person managed to escape. The apprehended persons were searched and weapons were recovered from their possession. On this basis, FIR was lodged vide C.R. No.118/2008 under Ss. 399 and 402 of IPC read with Ss. 3, 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act at L.T. Marg Police Station. The investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet was filed. It was revealed that the accused - appellants were involved in a murder case. They faced a separate trial under the provisions of the MCOC Act vide Special Case No.7/2008. That trial was concluded before the present Sessions Case. In that trial, all of them were convicted and sentenced. By consent of both parties i.e. prosecution as well as defence, evidence of some of the witnesses from that trial was taken on record in the present Sessions Case No.482/2008. In all, seven witnesses were part of the Sessions Case No.482/2008. The defence cross-examined four witnesses out of them in addition to the cross-examination which was already conducted in the said MCOC Act case. Thus, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW-1 Head Constable Ramesh Bhokare, PW-2 Head Constable Saiman Fernandes, PW-3 Ashish Shukla who was a pancha, PW-4 API Ajay Joshi, PW-5 Shamsundar Munj who was an ballistic expert, PW-6 Mrs. Anjali Badade who was an Assistant Chemical Analyst, PW-7 DCP Jadhav who had recorded confessional statement of the appellant Anil Giri during the course of investigation of the offence under the MCOC Act. He had also given sanction to prosecute these accused under the Arms Act.

3. The defence of the appellants was of total denial. Appellant No.1 Vijay Giri's defence was that he was apprehended from his house by Shri Dhamankar of Unit No.III who was accompanied by team of police officers. Appellant No.2 Ashokkumar Jaiswar's defence was that he was apprehended by four police officers from his house on 25/4/2008. The defence of appellant No.3 Narendra Giri was that he was apprehended by police of Unit-III on 25/4/2008 from Ashokvan Rikshaw Stand at 6.00 to 6.30 a.m.. And the defence of the appellant No.4 Anil Giri was that he was apprehended on 24/4/2008. His mobile phone was seized. His mother had filed complaint of missing with Kurar Village police station on or about 25/4/2008 as he had not reached home on 24/4/2008. He was falsely implicated in this case.

4. After considering the evidence on record and the defence of the appellants-accuse