THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHIRISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being Aggrieved By The Judgment And Order Dated 31/07/2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhandara in Regular Criminal Case No.100/2001, by which the trial Judge recorded the order of acquittal of respondentShirish Vasant Mutkure for the charge under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code, the present appeal was filed by the State of Maharashtra.

(2.) In Support Of Appeal, Ms. N.P. Mehta, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently submitted the reasoning given by the trial Judge for acquitting the respondent is clearly perverse and the trial judge ignored the fact that recovery of the stolen goods was made from the respondent. She further submitted that the respondent did not give any explanation as to how the stolen goods came into his possession and, therefore, in the case of theft or housebreaking, it is not always possible to have a direct evidence and, therefore, the evidence of recovery from his possession is the clinching evidence, but the trial Judge had no reason to ignore such important piece of evidence and acquitted the respondent. She further submitted that the order of acquittal deserves to be reversed, as the 14 cases have been registered against the respondent of similar nature i.e. theft and housebreaking and, thus he is a regular thief and must be punished.

(3.) Per Contra, Ms. S.H. Bhatia, Learned Appointed Counsel For The respondentaccused submitted that the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view and, therefore, this Court should not interfere in the order of acquittal. She then submitted that the submission made by Ms. Mehta, learned A.P.P. for the State in respect of earlier 14 cases is to prejudice the mind of the Court, but fact remains that he was acquitted in some cases and some cases are pending and, therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration. She further submitted that the respondent was in jail as an under trial for about 14 months and now for further two weeks due to the arrest made by the police on 24/11/2015. She then submitted that after 2008, not a single case of the similar type was registered against the respondent, because his wife has prevailed over him to desist from his ways of committing theft and housebreaking, and thus he has mended his ways and this Court should, therefore, give a chance of improvement. She then submitted that the wife of respondent has to maintain her two kids and requires the presence of her husband with her for upbringing the children as she is also working and earning. The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for leniency in case of reversal of order of acquittal.