STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAHAMMAD ABDUL RAHEMAN MANSURI@ BHOPALI & 3
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
STATE OF GUJARAT
Mahammad Abdul Raheman Mansuri@ Bhopali And 3
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Both these Appeals under Section 378 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 ["CrPC" for short] have been preferred by the State of Gujarat challenging the common judgment and order dated 29th December 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Panchmahals at Godhara in Sessions Case No. 303 and 116 of 2005, whereby, the respondents are acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 395, 397 of the Indian Penal Code ["IPC" for short] read with Section 25  (A) (B) of the Arms Act.
(2.) In the backdrop of the case of prosecution, pursuant to registration of FIR with Godhara Town Police Station, being I-CR No. 364 of 2003 for the offence; as above, investigation was carried out and on completion thereof, chargesheet was filed and submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhara and upon committal, the cases were numbered as Sessions Case No. 303/2004 and 116/2005, which resulted into acquittal of the respondents at the end of trial.
(3.) Complainant, a resident of Vrundavan Society, Bamroli Road, Godhara in the night of 31st January 2003 when was sitting with his family around 2:30 hours late night, found six persons armed with weapons like knife, entered his house and threatened them with dire consequences, if key of their cup-board is not handed over. By intimidating the complainant and his family members and under threat to life, the respondentsaccused committed robbery by taking away silver utensils, gold chains, revolver and such other items and cash amount. The robbers were described by their appearance and clothes worn by them, having age between 25 to 30 years, who had entered into the house of the complainant by removing iron grill of the window. Initially, investigating agency filed "A" summary which was objected to by the complainant and thereafter, an order was passed on 13th July 2004 rejecting the summary application. It is undisputed case of prosecution that the accused confessed the crime before the Police on 19th July 2004 in which names of co-accused were also declared. Based on the above statement of accused no. 2 dated 19th July 2004 given before the Police, accused nos. 1 & 3 came to be arrested. During the course of investigation, no recovery or discovery is made of the muddamal articles of theft and by transfer warrant, accused no. 4 came to be arrested on 25th August 2004.
3.1 Thus, the case on hand has two eye witnesses viz., complainant and his daughter and other evidence in the form of testimony of Executive Magistrate who carried out Test Identification Parade and that of Investigating Officer.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.