Back
G. A. SANAP
Pankaj S/o Vinayak Kanoje – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. All these appeals are arising out of the judgment and order dated 17.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha (for short, ‘the learned Judge’) and therefore, the appeals are being disposed of by common judgment. The particulars with regard to the accused numbers, appeal numbers and sentence can be tabulated as follows:
| Accused No. | Criminal Appeal No. | Name of accused | Sentence |
| 1. | 535 of 2017 | Chandrashekhar s/o Subhrahmanyam Mudliyar | 1. To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple imprisonment for six (6) months each for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC. 2. To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months each for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC |
| 4. | 450 of 2017 | Shailesh @ Ravi Bhaskarrao Masram | |
| 5. | 412 of 2017 | Sachin S/o. Chandraprakash Shrivastav |
| Accused No. | Criminal Appeal No. | ||
The prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the dacoity charge, including the loading of cash in the van, leading to the quashing of convictions.
The court emphasized the necessity of reliable identification and evidentiary support to uphold a conviction under IPC Section 395, finding significant procedural failures in the prosecution's case.
Interpretation of the Constitution cannot be frozen by its original understanding that it must evolve with the felt necessities of time, to meet the aspirations and challenges of the present and futu....
For a conviction under IPC Section 395, participation of five or more persons is essential, and identification procedures must meet legal standards; failure leads to acquittal.
To convict under Section 396 IPC, prosecution must establish involvement of five or more persons in committing dacoity; failure to prove this essential requirement leads to acquittal.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in dacoity cases, and minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not invalidate the conviction if the overall evidence is credible.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
