The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between robbery and theft under the Indian Penal Code, and the requirement for specific intent and actions to constitute robbery. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in establishing guilt for criminal offences.

JUDGMENT

1. The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and order dtd. 30/01/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.625 of 2017. The appellant was convicted and sentenced as follows:

i) The appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.392 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for six months.

ii) The appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.332 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one month.

iii) The appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.353 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one month.

iv) The appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.323 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one month.

v) The appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.504 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for one month.

vi) The appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.506-II of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for three months.

vii) The appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.153 of the Railways Act and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant was granted set off U/s.428 of the Cr.p.c. The appellant was acquitted from the offence punishable U/s.401 of the I.P.C. The amount of fine was directed to be paid to the Respondent No.2.

2. Heard Shri. Manas Gawankar, learned Appointed Advocate for the Appellant and Shri. Agarkar, learned APP for the State/Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.2 is served.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 17/07/2017, at about 5.25p.m., PW-2 Dinesh Chougule was getting down from the local train at Elphinstone Road railway station. The appellant snatched a mobile phone from his hands. Dinesh Chougule and some passengers followed him. He was apprehended. He was brought to the cabin of the Station Master. The police officers were informed. When he was being arrested, he resisted. He broke a glass and tried to attack the police officers causing incised injury to one of them. He bit the left leg of one Sandip Tilwe who had brought him to the Station Master's cabin. Sandip Tilwe and the police officer Kale were sent for medical examination at Nair hospital. After that, the police officer Kale lodged the F.I.R. vide C.R.No.528 of 2017 at Mumbai Central railway police station. The appellant was already arrested. The investigation was carried out. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The medical certificates of the injured were collected. The mobile handset was recovered from the pocket of the appellant at the time of his arrest. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses including the mobile handset owner Chougule and eye witness Tilwe who had caught the appellant, the police officer Kale who was attacked and who lodged the F.I.R., the panchas, the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. The defence of the appellant was that, he was falsely implicated at the instance of one Baba Chavan. He was arrested from his house and he was implicated falsely.

5. Learned Trial Judge disbelieved the defence of the appellant and he relied on the evidence led by the prosecution to convict and sentence the appellant, as mentioned earlier.