Criminal Appeal No. 1544 of 2003. Case: The State of Maharashtra Vs Vinod Narayan Salunkhe. Bombay High Court

Case Number:Criminal Appeal No. 1544 of 2003
Party Name:The State of Maharashtra Vs Vinod Narayan Salunkhe
Counsel:For Appellant: Deepak Thakare and P.H. Gaikwad, APP and For Respondents: Satyavrat Joshi, Adv.
Judges:P.N. Deshmukh, J.
Issue:Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 170, 34, 420
Judgement Date:May 11, 2017
Court:Bombay High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

P.N. Deshmukh, J.

  1. This Appeal is preferred by State of Maharashtra against Judgment passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai in Criminal Case No. 226/P/2001 on 26th September 2003, whereby Respondent came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 170 r/w Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

  2. Facts of the case of prosecution in brief can be stated as under:

    That accused on 16th April 2001 at about 8 a.m. by personating himself to be as a Public Servant as a CID Inspector opposite Mumbai Central ST Bus Stand, Nagpada, Mumbai took away Rs. 51,500/- with dishonest intention from the complainant Ashfaq Wali Mohammed Shaikh. In view of case of prosecution as aforesaid charge is framed against Respondent for the offences punishable under Section 170 r/w Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

  3. In order to prove the case levelled against Respondent prosecution examined in all four witnesses and commenced evidence by examining PW No. 1 Laxman Punjaji Gorey, the Investigating Officer, PW No. 2 Shri Ashfaq Wali Mohammed Chifa, Complainant, PW No. 3, Shri Mohammed Nisar Isaq Khan and concluded the evidence by examining PW No. 4 Naziruddin Abdul Rehman Khan, who has carried further investigation. Accused did not examine any witness in support of his defence. It is the specific case of accused that he came to be falsely implicated by the investigating officer since at that time Respondent who admittedly was in police service was under suspension and was facing departmental enquiry.

  4. The learned Trial Judge after considering evidence and documents on record had acquitted accused. Hence this Appeal.

  5. Heard learned APP for the State who has contended that the Trial Court has not evaluated evidence particularly of complainant whose evidence is found corroborated with the evidence of PW No. 3 Mohammed Nisar Isaq Khan and that from his evidence involvement of Respondent is clearly established. However, the learned Trial Court without relying upon said evidence, acquitted the Respondent. It is further contended that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the version of complainant and PW No. 3 Nisar Khan. As from their evidence, it is also submitted that identification of Respondent is established, who was identified by complainant from his photograph and has submitted that no identification parade was thus found to be necessary by the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL