Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 1990. Case: Sanjay alias Ravindra N. Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra. Bombay High Court

Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 94 of 1990
Party NameSanjay alias Ravindra N. Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra
CounselFor Appellant: V. M. Kanade, Adv.
JudgesV. Sahai , J. and R. G. Vaidyanatha, J.
IssueIndian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Sections 397, 393
Citation1996 CriLJ 2172
Judgement DateMarch 11, 1996
CourtBombay High Court

Judgment:

Vaidyanatha, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants directed against the judgement dated 19-1-1990 in Sessions Case No. 230/1989 on the file of the VII Assistant Sessions Judge, Thane.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP for the State-respondent.

2. Both the appellants were prosecuted by the police for an offence under Section 393, r/w 34 and 397 r/w 393, I.P.C.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 11-10-1988, complainant Gulzar Ahmed Rais PW 1 came from Bhivandi to Kalyan and got down at bus stand at about 5.45 p.m. He went near of public urinal to answer call of nature. When he came out of the public urinal, the prosecution case is that both the accused came there and threatened the complainant. It is alleged further that one of the accused caught hold of the complainant's shirt and pointing out a knife and demanding the complainant to part with an amount and property. The accused No. 1 was stated to be the person who was holding collar of complainant and brandishing a knife towards him. When the complainant was about to take out the money, some policeman who were on patrolling duty came near. After seeing them, both the accused started running. Both the accused were chased and apprehended near the urinal. The complainant and accused were brought to the police station. The complainant gave his complaint which was treated as FIR and a case was registered. Both the accused were formally arrested. A knife was recovered from the possession of the accused No. 1. After making the usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed alleging that both the accused had committed offences mentioned above. The defence of the accused (appellants) was one of denial.

3. After the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the prosecution has proved its case and convicted the appellants for offence under Section 393 r/w 34, I.P.C. R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. R.I. for 6 months. Appellant No. 1 was further convicted under Section 397 r/w 393, I.P.C. R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. R.I. for 6 months. Substantive sentences of appellant No. 1 were directed to run concurrently.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, both the appellants have come up in appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the judgement of the trial Court and the evidence and contended that the prosecution case is not proved and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial