Criminal Appeal Nos. 333 of 2011 and 666 of 2010. Case: Dinesh Ramsevak Prajapati and Ors. Vs The State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal Nos. 333 of 2011 and 666 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, Advocate and For Respondents: M.R. Tidke, A.P.P. |
| Judges | A. M. Thipsay, J. |
| Issue | Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25(1)(B)(a), 3, 3(1), 39; Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Sections 135, 37; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 399, 402, 492 |
| Judgement Date | January 12, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A. M. Thipsay, J.
-
These two appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment as the appellants in both these appeals were convicted in one and the same trial, held by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 2011 are the original accused Nos. 4 and 5 respectively, whereas, the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2010 are the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Apart from these appellants, one Vasu Thapa (accused No. 3) was also tried in the same case, and was also, like the appellants, convicted; but apparently, no appeal has been filed by him challenging his conviction and the sentences imposed upon him.
-
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 27th August 2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, convicting the appellants of the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 25(1)(B)(a) read with Section 3(1) of the Arms Act. The sentences imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge upon the appellants are as follows:
OFFENCE
PUNISHMENT
Section 399 of the IPC
R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, R.I. for 6 months.
Section 402 of the IPC
R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, R.I. for 3 months.
Apart from the aforesaid sentences, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant No. 1 also of the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(B)(a) read with Section 3(1) of the Arms Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that the sentences would run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and the sentences imposed upon them, the appellants have approached this court by filing these two appeals.
-
Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 2011 was preferred by the appellants therein from prison. As no advocate had been engaged by the said appellants, Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan was appointed to prosecute the appeal under the Free Legal Aid Scheme. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2010 had engaged an advocate, but she remained absent repeatedly, even though the appeal was listed on board for final hearing. Since it was not desirable to consider and/or decide the appeals separately (as the evidence was common and the same) Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan was appointed to prosecute the said appeal also, under the Free Legal Aid Scheme.
-
For the sake of convenience and clarity, the appellants shall be referred to as "the accused"; and when reference to an individual appellant would be necessary, he shall be referred to, by the serial number given to him in the trial court.
-
The prosecution case, as put before the trial court, in brief, was as follows:
Sharad Shinde (PW 1), a Police Constable attached to DCB CID, had, on 18th March 2009, gone to Hotel Ramanand at Parel to have tea. He was accompanied by Police Constable Farooqi. It was at about 9.45 p.m. While Shinde and Farooqi were having tea in the said hotel, they heard the discussion of some other customers present in the hotel. They could not see those customers at that time, as they were 'at the backside.' The discussion was to the effect that 'one Kali (accused No. 2) and one Kamal (accused No. 1) were coming with the articles on bike. That, thereafter, Vishal (absconding accused) would come and see the jewellery shop, and thereafter, they would do the...
To continue reading
Request your trial