The court emphasized that discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence necessitate acquittal, affirming the principle that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the respondent-State.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order of conviction dated 19/10/1996 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, against the present appellant who is the accused no.1. The accused who are four in number were charged by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 452 read with 34, under Section 394 read with Section 34, under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter ‘IPC’ for short) and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. The trial Court convicted the appellant and other accused for the offence punishable under Section 452 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- by each of them, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was further convicted for the offence charged against him punishable under Section 25 (1-B) sub-section (a) read with Section 3 of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for nine months. The appellant was acquitted for the offence charged against him and other accused punishable under Section 394 read with 34 of the IPC as well as Section 397 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:-

(I) PW-8 Sunil Chandgude, Station House OfÏcer of Goregaon Police Station received a telephone call from a member of the public at around 8.45 p.m. informing him that a robbery is going on at Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon (West) in the house of PW-1 Deepak Chavan, who is the complainant. The police party reached the spot when they saw two robbers (including the appellant) were detained by PW-1 and his family members with the assistance of PW-5, a resident of the building and remaining two robbers succeeded in running away from the spot. At that time, the complaint (Exhibit 10) lodged by PW-1 Deepak Chavan was recorded.

4. PW-1 Deepak Chavan in his evidence stated that the incident took place on 11/5/1992, at about 10.00 or 10.30 p.m. in his flat. In the said flat, his wife, two children, his younger brother by name Ajay Chauhan, his wife and his two daughters and his nephew Rishiraj Chauhan were residing. PW-1 had come home at around 8.30 p.m. At the relevant time, PW-1, his younger brother Ajay and PW-2 Rishiraj were present. The other family members had gone to another flat in the same building. At 9.40 p.m. to 10.00 p.m., two persons entered the main door of PW-1’s flat and came towards the hall. One person was armed with a revolver and the other one was holding a chopper. The appellant (accused no.1) who was holding revolver gave a blow on backside of the PW-1’s head and kicked him on his abdomen. PW-1 was pushed as a result of which he fell down. Thereafter, two more persons entered the flat. One of them was holding a knife. These two persons, who later entered went in the bedroom and closed the door for searching the belongings. When the accused were in the flat, the door bell rang. PW-1’s elder brother PW-3 Arvind Chauhan entered the flat after the main door was opened by the appellant. PW-3 Arvind hit the appellant as a result of which the revolver fell down. The appellant ran out of the flat. On hearing the shouts, the appellant was caught by the residents of the building. The person holding the chopper, who was inside the flat, was disarmed by the PW-1 and his brothers. In the meantime, two accused who were in the bedroom came out. They snatched a gold chain from the person of the PW-2 Rishiraj and fled away after creating a ruckus. PW-5 tried to catch hold the one amongst the two accused but the accused succeeded in fleeing. PW-1 on entering the bedroom realized that cash of around Rs.15,000/- was stolen. On arrival of the police, they took charge of two persons who were caught at the spot.

5. The prosecution examined as many as nin