SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Raj) 35

Supreme Court
Honble DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Honble LOKESHWAR SINGH PATNA, J.
Amit Singh Bhikamsingh Thakur - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2007
Decided On : January 05, 2007

Advocates Appeared:
Shekhar Prit Jha, Bipin, Kr. Jha and A.K. Tiwari, for Appellant V.N. Raghupathy, for Respondent

Headnote:(a) Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 27 – ``Facts discovered – Requirements of Sec. 27 – Discovery of fact in consequence of information received from accused in police custody – Discovery includes mental fact such as the place from which the object is produced and knowledge of accused as to this – Held – Only that portion of information which relates to the fact discovered, is admissible. (Paras 18 & 19)(b) Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 9 – Evidentiary value of Test Identification parade – Held – Test Identification Parade does not constitute substantive evidence but can only be used as corroborative of the statement in court.

       

Honble PASYAT, J.–Leave granted.

(2) The Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed four appeals which arose out of a common decision against them. All four accused before the High Court were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmad Nagar. Learned trial judge had held all the four accused persons to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 396, 506, 341, 379 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and sentenced each of them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation in respect of conviction relatable to Section 396 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC. Learned trial judge was of the view that offence relatable to Sections 506 and 341 IPC is covered by the main offence and no separate sentence was required to be passed. So far as offence relatable to Section 379 read with Section 120 B IPC is concerned, each of the accused persons was sentenced to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. Accused No. 4 i.e. present appellant alone was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 5 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1950 ( in short the Arms Act) and was further sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation. It was also recorded that offence under Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act is covered under Section 5 read with Section 27 of the said Act and therefore, no separate sentence was passed.

(3). Challenge to the judgment before the High Court in the four appeals did not yield any relief.

(4). The accusations filtering out unnecessary details which led to the trial of the four accused persons are essentially as follows:

The incident in question took place on 1.5.1999 at about 8.15 p.m. The Complainant Abhijit Dhone (PW-1) is an eye witness of the same and therefore, criminal law was set into motion by the complaint lodged by said Abhijit at Topkhana Police Station, Ahmed Nagar, on the same day at about 9 p.m. Complainant Abhijit was working with the victim Santoshkumar Kirjichand Bakliwal (hereinafter described as deceased) in his shop of gold and silver situated at Ganj Bazaar, Ahmednagar, since about 15 to 20 days prior to the incident. His working hours started around 9 a.m. He alongwith his master Santoshkumar used to come to the shop and used to have break in the afternoon. The shop used to be closed at about 8 p.m. and the two used to return home some times by rickshaw and some times on feet. It was the routine of Santoshkumar to bring home the daily earnings in a chocolate coloured cloth bag at the end of every day.

(5). On 1.5.1999 at the end of the day at about 8 p.m. Santoshkumar collected the daily earnings in the chocolate coloured bag. The master and complainant closed the shop and started home on feet. At about 8.15 p.m. they were walking in front of hospital of Dr. Deshpande, which is near the residence of the master. A vehicle overtook them and halted by going little ahead. The pillion rider jumped from the vehicle, approached the complainant and his master and demanded the money bag. The master gripped the bag with more firmness. The offender again angrily demanded the bag in threatening language. The threat was followed by the offender drawing out a pistol, which was kept underneath his shirt and near his stomach. He aimed the pistol at the master. Even upon complainant trying to see the registration number of the vehicle, he was threatened by the offender and a bullet was fired at the master at his chest from a close distance. The assailant immediate jumped on the M-80 motorcycle and the motorcycle fled away in the direction of Kothla Bus stand.

(6). In spite of bullet injury to the chest, the deceased ran towards residence, but dashed against the window and fell down.











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top