JALINDERSING AJITSING KALYANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2018-4-93
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on April 20,2018

Jalindersing Ajitsing Kalyani Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.S. Gadkari, J. - (1.) The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 28th April 2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Pune in Sessions Case No.160 of 2008 arising out of C.R. No.218 of 2006 registered with Bhosri Police Station, Pune, thereby convicting the appellant under Sections, 395, and 457 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years on each count and to to pay total fine amount of Rs.10,000/. The said Judgment and Order dated 28th April 2012 is impugned herein.
(2.) By an Order dated 12th September 2014, Smt. Nasreen S.K. Ayubi, the learned Advocate was appointed to espouse the case of the appellant. Heard Smt. Nasreen Ayubi, the learned Counsel appointed by this Court for the appellant and the learned APP. Perused the record.
(3.) The prosecution case in brief is as under: (i) In the intervening night of 21.6.2006 and 22.6.2006 and particularly in the weehours of 22.6.2006 i.e. between 3.00 a.m to 4.00 a.m the appellant along with four other accused persons broken open the door of the house of Shri Mangesh Patil (PW No.1) and committed criminal tresspass in his house. That the appellant was holding a sword in his hand. The coaccused Lalsingh Dagar (accused No.7) was holding country made firearm. The appellant and other accused by putting the inmates of the house i.e. Shri Mangesh Patil (PW No.1), Smt. Sandhya Patil (PW No.2) and their two children under the fear of death, robbed the ornaments and other valuables from the cupboard. That a bulb in the passage of the said building was burning and in the light of the said bulb initially Shri Mangesh Patil and Smt. Sandhya Patil had an occasion to see the appellant while committing dacoity in their house. The appellant and other accused persons threatened the inmates to switch off the other lights. The incident of dacoity was going on for about 15 to 20 minutes. Thereafter the appellant and other accused left the said premises by locking the main door of the said house from outside. While leaving the house, the appellant and other accused persons threatened the inmates of the house of direconsequence, if they raise alarm or noice. (ii) After the appellant and other accused persons left the said house, the inmates of the said house raised alarms whereupon the neighbours gathered there. It was revealed that, the appellant and coaccused had also committed dacoity in the house of Shri Kolte which was situated on the ground floor of the said building. (iii) The first information report of Mr. Mangesh Patil (PW No.1) came to be lodged and was reduced in writing by Shri Rajendra Dhamankar (PW No.5), Police Officer attached to Bhosri Police Station, Pune. The investigation was thereafter conducted by Shri Karbhari Handore (PW No.7) A.P.I. attached to the said Police Station. During the course of investigation, the appellant came to be arrested on transfer warrant, as he was also involved in another crime bearing No.426 of 2006 registered with Swargate Police Station, Pune and was arrested by Shri Bajirao Jagtap (PW No.8), an officer attached to AntiDacoity Cell. The Investigating Agency recovered various ornaments which came to the share of the appellant in the presence of panchwitness Shri Mangesh Waikar (PW No.4). (iv) After completion of investigation, the police submitted chargesheet in the Court of competent jurisdiction. As the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Trial Court framed charge below Exhibit8 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The said charge was read over and explained to the appellant and other accused to which they denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case, examined in all eight witnesses. The learned Trial Court after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties to the said case, was pleased to convict the appellant by its impugned Judgment and Order dated 28th April 2012 as stated hereinabove.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.