SHAHAJI RAMANNA NAIR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appellant, who is original accused No. 1, preferred this Appeal for setting aside the order of conviction under Sections 393 and 398 of IPC and the sentence of R. I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 2000/- for offence under Section 393 IPC and R. I. for 7 years for offence under Section 398 IPC passed by the 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 259 of 2001.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 7th December 2000, P.W. 5 Rupchand Sharma, who was the driver of the Maruti Zen Car bearing No. MH 02 JA 9654 parked in front of NCPA Theatre, Vinay Shah Marg, near Bus Stop No. 108, was sitting inside the car and was taking his lunch at about 11.15 a.m. At that time, suddenly one person entered into the car and pointing out a knife to Rupchand Sharma directed him to start the car. Being frightened, he shouted and at that time another person gagged his mouth. Rupchand Sharma tried to rescue himself from the clutches of those persons and at that time the appellant caused injuries over his right hand thumb. One of them also took bite of Rupchand Sharma. As many people, particularly the hawkers, saw the incident, the said two culprits ran towards the sea-shore. At about the same time the police also came there in a police jeep and caught both the culprits. The accused No. 1 who was holding knife and accused No. 2 were arrested but later on accused No. 2 absconded. On the basis of the report lodged by Rupchand Sharma the offence came to be registered. He was also referred to the St. George Hospital for medical examination. Statements of several persons were recorded and after investigation the charge-sheet came to be filed. Vide Exhibit 12 the charges came to be framed against the present appellant for offence punishable under Sections 393, and 394 as well as Section 398 of IPC. On behalf of the prosecution in all 8 witnesses came to be examined. The medical officer was not examined. Prosecution could not prove the injuries suffered by the P.W. 5. In the result after trial accused was acquitted for the charges under Section 394 of IPC. However, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 393 and Section 398 IPC separately and was also sentenced on both the counts separately.

(3.) Heard Mr. Sait, Advocate appointed by the Court to represent the accused/appellant who has preferred the Appeal through jail and Mr. Adsule, APP for the State. Perused the record and proceedings of the Trial Court.