The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper identification in court and the need for reliable and untampered evidence in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

SARANG V.KOTWAL,J. - The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and order dtd. 27/12/2021, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.90 of 2016. There were four accused in the trial. The Appellant was the accused No.2. The other accused were Accused No.1 Mohd. Naved Salim Parmar, Accused No.3 Rahul Ramya Pawar and accused No.4 Sanjaykumar Gagankumar Mahanti. At the conclusion of the trial, the Accused Nos.1 and 4 were acquitted. The Appellant/Accused No.2 and the Accused No.3 were convicted and sentenced as follows:

i) They were convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s. 341 r/w. 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C. ') and were sentenced to suffer S.I. for one month.

ii) They were convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.394 r/w. 397 and 120(B) of the I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00 each and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for three months each.

iii) They were convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.307 r/w. 120(B) of the I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00 each and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for three months each.

iv) They were convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.3 r/w. 25 of the Indian Arms Act and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 each and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for one month each.

v) They were convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.5 r/w. 27 of the Indian Arms Act and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000.00 each and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for one month each.

Both of them were granted set off U/s.428 of the Cr.p.c. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Heard Mr. Amin Solkar, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Agarkar, learned APP for the State/Respondent No.1 and Mr. Aashish Satpute, learned appointed advocate for the Respondent No.2.

3. The prosecution case is that, Dakshesh Shah who is the first informant in this case wanted to send Rs.25000.00 to his mother in Gujarat. He called his friend Dipak Vora. Both of them went on a motorcycle to Malad to find a courier to send that amount. The offices were closed. They were returning back. They reached Kandivali. The motorcycle was driven by Dakshesh Shah and Dipak Vora was the pillion rider who was carrying the bag with money. They were intercepted by a motorcycle. Two persons got down from that motorcycle. The prosecution case is that, they were the Appellant and the Accused No.3. They snatched the bag from Dipak Vora. The informant and Dipak Vora resisted. It is alleged that, both these accused then fired at the informant with their respective firearms. One bullet got embedded in the wrist of the informant. The other hit his thigh. The two empties and one deformed bullet lay on the ground. The accused went away from there. The informant was taken to the hospital. His statement was recorded and the offence was registered at Kandivali police station. The investigation was carried out. The spot panchanama was conducted. Two empties and one bullet were seized from the spot. The bullet removed from the informant's hand was collected. In the meantime, the police got information that both the accused were in Nagpur. The police team went to Nagpur and took help of the local police. The Appellant and the accused No.3 were arrested from a lodge in Nagpur on 11/12/2015. At the time of their arrest, two firearms were recovered from them. They were seized. The firearms and the bullets were sent for testing to Ballistic Experts. The investigation was carried out. The test identification parades were held separately and both of them were identified. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and at the conclusion