Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
G.A. SANAP, J.
Pankaj S/o Vinayak Kanoje – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 599/2018 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 404/2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 412/2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 428/2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 430/2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 431/2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 436/2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 445/2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 450/2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 454/2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 472/2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 473/2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 478/2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 535/2017
Decided on : 20-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr Adwait Manohar, Mr Atharva Manohar,, Advocate Mr C. R. Thakur, Adv. alongwith Mr L. B. Khergade, Advocate, Mr Bhushan Dafale, Mr Y. B. Mandpe, Mr R. M. Daga, Mr. A. C. Jaltare, Mr Vishwajit Sambre, Adv. holding for Mr R. R. Vyas, Mr. P. A. Abhyankar, Mr A. H. Joshi, Mr M. M. Agnihotri, Mr P. K. Bezalwar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Chutke and Mr Piyush Pendke, APPs

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.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 395, 397, 412, and 414 - Dacoity - Conviction of several accused under various sections was challenged - Prosecution failed to prove that Rs.2,36,50,000/- was loaded in the cash van on the date of the incident - Evidence of witnesses was inconsistent and lacked credibility - FIR was ante-timed, raising doubts about the prosecution's case - Investigation was found to be defective, with no independent witnesses examined - Appeals allowed, and convictions quashed. (Paras 1, 9, 63)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that a cash van transporting Rs.2,36,50,000/- was stopped and robbed by armed assailants. The cash was reportedly loaded at Axis Bank, Akola, but the prosecution could not substantiate this claim with credible evidence. (Paras 2, 9)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish the occurrence of the dacoity as alleged, and the FIR was not lodged promptly, indicating possible fabrication. (Paras 63)

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies, the validity of the FIR, and the adequacy of the investigation conducted by the police. (Paras 9, 63)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, including the loading of cash in the van and the involvement of the accused. The failure to do so led to the quashing of convictions. (Paras 63)

Result: Appeals allowed; convictions quashed and set aside. (Paras 64)

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.	Name of accused	Sentence
2.	404 of 2017	Sallukumar @ Selvakumar Balsubramanyam Kaunder	To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) 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 412 of the IPC.
10.	404 of 2017	Ravindra @ Ravi S/o. Sampatrao Madekar
11.	445 of 2017	Mangal @ Satyaprakash S/o. Nandlal Yadav
12.	428 of 2017	Prashant S/o. Rambali Waghmare
13.	428 of 2017	Ravi @ Chhotu S/o. Tikaram Bagade
14.	436 of 2017	Mohd. Sadiq S/o. Sheikh Mehaboob
15.	472 of 2017	Suleman S/o. Yunus Surya
16.	473 of 2017	Mobin Ahmad Khan S/o. Saifulla Khan
17.	436 of 2017	Sheikh Altaf S/o. Sheikh Munaf
19.	454 of 2017	Sau Sadhna W/o. Kishor Itale
20.	404 of 2017	Ashwind Singh @ Sonu S/o. Shatrughnasingh Chavan

Accused No.	Criminal Appeal No.	Name of accused	Sentence
7.	431 of 2017	Sheikh Mustaq @ Sameer S/o. Sheikh Habib	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 412 of the IPC.
8.	430 of 2017	Rehaan Baig S/o. Akram Baig
21.	599 of 2018	Pankaj Vinayak Kanoje

Accused No.

Criminal Appeal No

Name of accused

Sentence

478 of 2017

Mohd. Shamim S/o Abdul Ajij

1. To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple imprisonment for six (6) months for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC.

2. To suffer rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple imprisonment for three (3) months for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC.

3. To suffer rigorous six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one (1) month for the offence punishable under Section 342 of the IPC.

Total 22 accused faced the trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha. Accused Nos.3, 9, 22, and 24 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 395, 120-B, 342, 356, 407, 408, 409, 412 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). Accused Nos. 1 to 5, 7 to 17, 19 to 24, except two absconding accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

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.

Cases Referred (4)

Related Judgments

Pankaj S/o Vinayak Kanoje VS State of Maharashtra

Karthik S, S/o Subramani vs State By Tarikere Police Rep. By State Public Prosecutor Bangalore - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 2697

Manoj Kumar VS State - 2023 Supreme(Kar) 1222

Ranjeet Yadav, S/o. Basudeo Yadav VS State of Jharkhand - 2021 Supreme(Jhk) 811

Shaji @ Methan Shaji, S/o. Shahul Hameed VS State of Kerala, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Pettah Circle, Represented Through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 573

Baikuntha Bhoi vs State of Odisha - 2024 Supreme(Ori) 260

Kallu @ Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. - 2026 Supreme(All) 145

Heeralal Mirdha v. State of Jharkhand - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 8696

Vasantha Saliyana, Karnataka State VS State Of Telangana, Rep. By PP. , - 2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1049

md. abbas vs the state - 2024 Supreme(BD)(SC) 14311