SIDDIQUI BADLU KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE Judgment and order dated 18 -6 -1997 the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Sessions Case No. 1553 of 1994, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated hereinafter : - (i) Under Section 452 IPC to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default to suffer R.I. for 1 month; (ii) Under Section 392 IPC to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/ - in default to suffer R.I. for l'/2 months ; and (iii) Under Section 392 r/w 397 IPC to suffer 7 years R.I. The substantive sentences of the appellant were ordered to run concurrently. It may be mentioned that along with the appellant, co -accused Shaffik Ahmed Jamil Ahmed was also tried but in view of the infirmities found in the evidence against him, he was acquitted vide the impugned Judgment.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case is that on 25.8.1994, at about 3 p.m. three unknown miscreants armed with choppers entered the jewellery shop of the informant Prakaschand Badama P.W. 6 and his partner Nirmalkumar Jain P.W. 3 situated at 138, Bumbkhama Bldg, 1st floor, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai - 400 002. It is said that two of the miscreants stood at the counter and door of the shop respectively. One of them cut the telephone connection. One came inside the shop pointing a chopper towards the informant asking him not to raise cries. The said person removed the gold ornaments from the shop and putting them in a rexine bag along with his companions ran away. It is said that when the appellant and his associates were trying to run away, the informant and others raised shouts 'Chor chor' and near Aliumar Street, succeeded in apprehending the appellant along with a rexine bag and the chopper. It is said that prior to being apprehended, the appellant tried to inflict a blow with the chopper on the informant. After the appellant was apprehended, he was taken along with the rexine bag containing jewellery and the chopper to Pydhonie Police Station,

(3.) WE have heard Mr. K. M. Sangani for the appellant and Ms Aruna Kamath, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. We have also perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material Exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C.; and the impugned Judgment. After reflecting over the matter, we are satisfied that this appeal is devoid of substance and deserves to be dismissed.