Bombay High Court
Ramesh Narsing Bhosale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 August, 2017
Bench: A.M. Badar
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.974 OF 2015
RAMESH NARSING BHOSALE )...APPELLANT
V/s.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT
Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms.N.S.Jain, APP for the Respondent - State.
AND
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.246 OF 2012
ANAND ANIL RAIMOKAR )...APPLLANT
V/s.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT
Mr.Prasanna Shahane h/f. Mr.Milind Deshmukh, Advocate for the
Appellant.
Ms.N.S.Jain, APP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE : 22nd AUGUST 2017
avk 1/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 Criminal Appeal No.974 of 2015 is by the appellant
who was accused no.1 before the trial court where as Criminal
Appeal No.246 of 2012 is by the appellant who was original
accused no.3 before the learned trial court. It is seen that, though
Sessions Case bearing no.573 of 2010 arising out of Crime No.97
of 2010 registered against these appellants and other co-accused
was heard by the learned trial court, at the stage of recording
statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale (Criminal Appeal
No.974 of 2015) absconded. Therefore, initially said Sessions
case bearing no.573 of 2010 came to be decided against
remaining accused persons on 4th January 2012 by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The trial of appellant / accused
no.1 Ramesh Bhosale (Criminal Appeal No.974 of 2015) came to
be separated at that time. By the impugned judgment and order
dated 4th January 2012, appellant / accused no.3 Anand
Raimokar came to be convicted of the offence punishable under
avk 2/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and he came to be
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years apart from
directing him to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for 1 month. Being aggrieved by his
conviction and sentence, this Criminal Appeal bearing no.246 of
2012 by convicted appellant / accused no.3 Anand Raimokar.
Subsequently, appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale came to
be apprehended and after recording his statement under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C., and after hearing the parties, learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Pune, vide judgment and order dated 20 th August
2015 passed in Sessions Case No.572 of 2010 was pleased to
convict the appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale of the
offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC and sentenced
him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years apart from
directing him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for 15 days. This judgment and order dated
20th August 2015 is challenged by the said appellant / accused
no.1 Ramesh Bhosale by filing Criminal Appeal bearing No.974 of
2015. As both these criminal appeals are arising out of the same
avk 3/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
sessions case and as evidence against both appellants / accused is
common, both these appeals are being decided by this common
judgment.
2 Briefly stated, facts leading to the institution of the
present appeals at the instance of appellant / original accused
no.1 Ramesh Bhosale and appellant / accused no.3 Anand
Raimokar are thus :
(a) First Informant / PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar is resident of
Ghodganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Navhra, Taluka Shirur,
District Pune. Her family comprises of her husband Bhagwat
Kalaskar and minor son named Rishikesh. On 19 th March 2010,
her husband was on night duty at the sugar factory. Hence,
informant PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar and her son Rishikesh, after
having dinner, slept at about 9.30 p.m. In the night intervening
19th March 2010 and 20th March 2010, at about midnight,
informant PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar woke up and saw one unknown
person of average height in her house. He threatened informant
PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar by showing a sword. Then another
avk 4/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
unknown person of less height came before her and demanded
mobile and keys of cupboard from her. By opening the cupboard,
robbers then took cash and gold ornaments from it. They also
took mangalsutra and two pairs of ear tops from informant PW1
Kalpana Kalaskar. Robbers then fled from back door of the house
by bolting it from outside. When informant PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar
thereafter opened the front door, she saw four more robbers in
front of her at the front door and therefore she again closed the
door. After sometime, informant PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar came out
from the window, opened the rear door and informed the incident
to neighbours and security persons. She then lodged report -
Exhibit 62, setting the wheels of investigation into motion. In
pursuant to her First Information Report (FIR), Crime No.97 of
2010 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC
came to be registered against accused persons.
(b) PW9 Vishnu Pawar, P.I. of Shirur Police Station, conducted
investigation. By visiting the spot of the incident, spot panchnama
Exhibit 68 came to be recorded in presence of PW4 Sachin Thorat.
avk 5/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
(c) Appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale came to be
arrested in this Crime No.97 of 2010 on 6 th May 2010 after getting
him transferred under orders of the learned JMFC from Crime
No.92 of 2010. Co-accused Tanhya Kale also came to be arrested.
(d) During the course of investigation, on 10th May 2010, co-
accused Tanhya Kale made a voluntary disclosure statement -
Exhibit 70, which came to be recorded in presence of PW5
Ramesh Chaudhary, which ultimately resulted in recovery of
robbed gold ornaments from appellant / accused no.3 Anand
Raimokar. Ultimately, they came to be seized by effecting
recovery panchnama dated 10th May 2010 - Exhibit 71.
Accordingly, appellant / accused no.3 Anand Raimokar, came to
be arrested. PW6 Rushikesh Shelke, Naib - Tahsildar, in presence
of PW2 Ramesh Kawade - panch witness, conducted Test
Identification Parade ( TIP ) of appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh
Bhosale and that of co-accused Tanhya Kale on 3rd August 2010, at
Yerwada Prison, Pune, in which PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar is claimed
to have identified appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale, so
avk 6/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
also the co-accused. Accordingly, memorandum of identification
parade - Exhibit 64 came to be recorded by PW6 Rushikesh
Shelke. Routine investigation followed, and ultimately, on
completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against
both appellants / accused and co-accused, which ultimately
resulted in registration of Sessions Case No.572 of 2010.
(e) The learned trial court framed and explained the charge to
accused persons. They abjured guilt and claimed trial. In order to
bring home the guilt of accused persons, the prosecution has
examined as many as nine witnesses. Informant PW1 Kalpana
Kalaskar is examined to prove the incident of robbery. The FIR
lodged by her on 20th March 2010 is at Exhibit 62. PW2 Ramesh
Kawade is a panch witness to the identification parade conducted
by PW6 Rushikesh Shelke on 3rd August 2010. Exhibit 64 is the
Memorandum of Test Identification Parade. PW3 Ashok Minde - a
panch witness to confessional statement and resultant recovery
panchnama (Exhibits 70 and 71 respectively) has turned hostile to
the prosecution. As such, prosecution has examined another panch
avk 7/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
PW5 Ramesh Chaudhary on this aspect. Sachin thorat - a panch
witness is examined as PW4 to prove spot panchnama Exhibit 68
conducted on 20th March 2010. PW7 Ramesh Kumbhar, Police
Head Constable, had recorded FIR Exhibit 62 and part of the
investigation of the crime in question came to be conducted by
PW8 Ashok Wandekar, P.I., by visiting the spot and effecting spot
panchnama. Rest of the investigation of the crime in question is
conducted by PW9 Vishnu Pawar, Police Inspector, of Shirur Police
Station.
(f) After hearing the parties, on recording statements under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of respective appellants / accused
persons, ultimately by impugned judgments and orders
appellants / accused came to be convicted and sentenced
accordingly, as indicated in the opening paragraph of this
judgment.
3 I have heard the learned advocate appearing for
appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale. He argued that though
avk 8/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
it is averred by the first informant PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar that she
was threatened at the point of sword, this weapon of the offence
is not seized during investigation. The learned advocate further
argued that evidence of first informant / PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar
shows that robbers had covered their faces with scarf and there
was no availability of light at the spot of the incident. Hence,
evidence regarding identity coming on record through the TIP, so
also the dock identification is suspicious and benefit thereof
naturally goes to the accused. He further argued that there is
delay in conducting TIP and there were "n" number of
opportunities to the prosecution witnesses to see appellant /
accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale prior to conducting the TIP.
4 The learned advocate appearing for appellant /
accused no.3 Anand Raimokar argued that one of the panch to the
Memorandum and recovery panchnama namely, PW3 Ashok
Minde has turned hostile to the prosecution, and as such, benefit
of doubt goes to accused. He further argued that ingredients of
the offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC are not
avk 9/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
established by the prosecution, in as much as, there is no evidence
to come to the conclusion that the appellant / accused no.3 Anand
Raimokar had reason to believe that ornaments allegedly
purchased by him were stolen ornaments.
5 As against this, the learned APP supported the
impugned judgments and orders of conviction by arguing that the
learned trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on
record and come to the right conclusion in holding that the
appellant / accused no.1 had committed robbery along with co-
accused at the house of PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar, and appellant /
accused no.3 Anand Raimokar having belief that ornaments were
stolen, had purchased them from the co-accused.
6 I have carefully considered the rival submissions.
Similarly, I have gone through the record and proceedings
including oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the
prosecution. Let us now examine whether with the help of
evidence available on record, it can be held that prosecution has
avk 10/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
established that appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale with
the aid of co-accused had committed robbery at the house of PW1
Kalpana Kalaskar and looted ornaments and other articles worth
Rs.68,800/- in the night intervening 19th March 2010 and 20th
March 2010 at Colony of Sugar Factory at Navhra in Shirur Taluka
of Pune District. Considering the nature of charge leveled against
the appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale, fate of the
prosecution case to a large extent, hinges on the testimony of the
sole eye witness to the incident, namely, PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar.
The incident in question occurred at the midnight in the night
intervening 19th March 2010 and 20th March 2010. Let us,
therefore, peruse her evidence at the outset in order to ascertain
whether there is sufficient evidence to implicate appellant /
accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale in the offence held to be proved
against him by the learned trial court, keeping in mind the
important aspect that the incident in question took place in the
midnight.
avk 11/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
7 It is in evidence of PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar that her
husband was not present in the house in the night intervening
19th March 2010 and 20th March 2010, he being in the sugar
factory for his night duty. She further deposed that after having
dinner with her young son, she slept at her house. At about 12.30
a.m., she woke up to see one strong man with good height holding
sword and another person with less height in her house. As per
her version, on the point of sword, the man with good height
threatened her to keep mum. He had taken her mobile phone.
Another person with short height took keys of the cupboard. PW1
Kalpana Kalaskar further testified that both robbers then opened
the almirah and took out cash amounting to Rs.10,000/-, apart
from ear ring, nose ring, finger ring as well as a key holder of
silver metal. PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar further deposed that tall
robber removed her ear rings, mangalsutra and toe rings. After
committing robbery, as stated by PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar, both
robbers ran away from back door of the house by bolting it from
outside. She then opened the front door of her house to see four
more robbers standing there, and therefore, she closed the door.
avk 12/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
Subsequently, as stated by PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar, she came out of
the house through a window and informed the neighbours as well
as security of the sugar factory in respect of the incident in
question. This witness lodged FIR Exhibit 62 with promptitude in
the said night itself which resulted in registration of Crime No.97
of 2010 against unknown persons for the offence punishable
under Section 392 of the IPC.
8 Before dwelling upon other aspects of the matter, let
us examine whether this witness has duly identified the culprits
for sustaining conviction for the offence punishable under Section
392 of the IPC. PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar, in her chief-examination,
has stated that she identified both accused persons viz. appellant /
accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale and co-accused Tanhya Kale at the
time of identification parade conducted by the Investigating
Officer. This witness identified both of them before the court by
stating that appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale is the said
heighted person where as co-accused Tanhya Kale is a person,
who she has stated to be a person with short height. In her cross-
avk 13/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
examination, PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar has accepted the fact that at
the time of the incident there was darkness in the house and only
a zero power bulb was on, emitting light. PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar
candidly accepted the fact that at the time of the incident of
robbery at her house, accused persons had covered the faces by
scarf. She further stated that during her second visit to the Police
Station Shirur, seized articles were shown to her.
9 The FIR lodged by PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar at Exhibit 62
shows that one of the robbers to whom she has described as a
person with average height had wrapped his face with red and
blue muffler.
10 PW9 Vishnu Pawar, the Investigating Officer, during his
cross-examination has candidly accepted the fact that during
investigation it transpired to him that accused persons had
covered their faces by scarf at the time of the incident in question.
Paragraph 11 of his cross-examination further reveals that after
giving this admission, the Investigating Officer PW9 Vishnu Pawar
avk 14/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
further accepted the fact that when accused persons were
produced before the learned JMFC for the purpose of getting their
remand, their faces were not covered and they were not produced
in veil. Deposition of PW9 Vishnu Pawar, Investigating Officer,
further shows that thereafter the learned APP made him alert and
the request of the learned APP to repeat the same question is also
unfortunately allowed by the learned trial court, for no reason.
Then, PW9 Vishnu Pawar, Investigating Officer, started giving
answers in negative to further questions put to him in respect of
production of appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale for
remand on 2nd May 2010, and thereafter production before the
court of the learned JMFC subsequently, without veil. The tone
and tenor of cross-examination of PW9 Vishnu Pawar as such,
makes it clear that, at the first blush, understanding the questions
put to him during cross-examination rightly, he came out with the
version that during investigation it was transpired to him that
accused persons while committing robbery had covered their faces
by scarf and subsequently when they were produced before the
learned JMFC for remand, they were not in veil. I see no reason
avk 15/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
to accept this version of the Investigator coming on record from
his cross-examination.
11 On the backdrop of this evidence, absence of sufficient
light on the scene of occurrence at the time of the occurrence
assumes importance. The incident in question took place inside
the house where except a zero power bulb, there was no other
source of light. As indicated by material prosecution witnesses i.e.
PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar - an eye witness to the incident and PW9
Vishnu Pawar - the Investigator, the robbers had covered their
faces by scarf. In this view of the matter, there was no occasion
for sole eye witness PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar to see the faces of
robbers and their facial expressions in order to enable her to
identify them in the TIP, which was conducted subsequently after
about three months.
12 Evidence regarding delayed TIP conducted by the
Investigator is also wholly unsatisfactory, particularly, in the light
of evidence of Investigator i.e. PW9 Vishnu Pawar. It is well settled
avk 16/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
that TIP is required to be conducted with a reasonable dispatch. It
is also well settled that identification of an accused for the first
time in the court after lapse of a considerable time by a witness to
whom he was stranger, should not be relied upon, the same being,
from its very nature, inherently of a weak nature. Evidence of
identity is required to be scrutinised by giving all benefits of doubt
to the accused. What weightage should be given to the evidence
of the TIP always depends upon facts and circumstances of a
particular case before the court and no straight jacket formula can
be laid on this aspect. On this backdrop, let us examine peculiar
facts and circumstances of this case making the evidence of TIP
suspect and lacunic. The evidence adduced by the prosecution on
this aspect does not eliminate the possibility of the appellant /
accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale being shown to the prosecution
witnesses prior to the TIP. The evidence of the sole eye witness
PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar shows that she had no opportunity to see
faces of robbers. In this fact situation, it is relevant to note that
appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale came to be arrested in
this Crime No.97 of 2010 on 6th May 2010 after getting him
avk 17/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
transferred from Crime No.92 of 2010. It is brought on record
from chief-examination of PW9 Vishnu Pawar, the Investigating
Officer, that on 6th May 2010 itself, appellant / accused no.1
Ramesh Bhosale was produced the learned JMFC for seeking his
remand and accordingly, the Investigator got his remand up to 14 th
March 2010. Examination-in-chief of PW9 Vishnu Pawar,
Investigating Officer, further shows that on 23rd May 2010 accused
persons were produced before the learned JMFC and their remand
up to 31st May 2010 was obtained. It is, thus, seen that, as per
mandate of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., appellant / accused no.1
Ramesh Bhosale was being regularly produced before the learned
JMFC for seeking his remand from 6th May 2010. There is no
positive evidence coming on record through the Investigator that
during this visit to the court of the learned JMFC for getting
remand, appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale was kept
under veil in order to eliminate the chances of seeing him by the
prosecution witnesses including PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar.
avk 18/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
13 At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that cross-
examination of PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar shows that after the
incident she visited police station once for lodging the FIR and on
second occasion she visited the police station for identifying all
seized articles. Thus, PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar had been to the
Police Station Shirur, after seizure of ornaments on the basis of
confessional statement and resultant recovery panchnama at the
instance of co-accused Tanhya Kale. PW5 Ramesh Chaudhary,
panch witness, duly proved the memorandum statement of co-
accused Tanhya Kale recorded on 10th May 2010 and resultant
recovery of ornaments on the same date. The memorandum
statement is at Exhibit 70 whereas recovery panchnama is at
Exhibit 71. Evidence of PW9 Vishnu Pawar - the Investigating
Officer shows that on 12th May 2010 he had shown seized
ornaments to PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar and had then recorded her
statement. As stated earlier, first remand of appellant / accused
no.1 Ramesh Bhosale was up to 14th March 2010. Obviously, it
was police custody remand. As such, up to 14 th March 2010,
appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale was in custody of
avk 19/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
Shirur Police Station, which was visited on 12th May 2010 by PW1
Kalpana Kalaskar - an eye witness to the incident in question. As
such, during her second visit to the Police Station on 12 th May
2010, she had an opportunity to see appellant / accused no.1
Ramesh Bhosale. The prosecution has not adduced any positive
evidence in this regard to eliminate chance of witnessing the
appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale by PW1 Kalpana
Kalaskar during her visit to the Police Station on 12 th May 2010.
Similarly, there is no evidence to the effect that during his visit to
the court of learned JMFC in company of police, necessary
precautions were taken to keep him in veil.
14 In the case in hand, the Investigator took time of more
than three months for conducting the TIP. Accused / robbers were
certainly strangers to PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar. Evidence on record
indicates that robbers had covered their faces with scarf at the
time of incident. In the backdrop of these facts, evidence of
Executive Magistrate PW6 Rushikesh Shelke so also panch witness
PW2 Ramesh Kawade does not show that at the time of
avk 20/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
identification of the appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale
during the course of TIP conducted on 3 rd August 2010, PW1
Kalpana Kalaskar had ascribed the role allegedly performed by
him during the course of robbery. Evidence of both these
witnesses, so also that of PW1 Kalpana Kalaskar - an identifying
witness is conspicuously silent on this aspect. Evidence of
Investigator PW9 Vishnu Pawar shows that charge-sheet against
accused persons came to be filed on 2 nd August 2010 i.e. prior to
conducting of TIP. There is no positive evidence to show that
precaution was taken on this day in order to assure that
prosecution witnesses have no opportunity to see accused persons
on that day.
15 In view of foregoing discussion, a reasonable doubt
lurks in the judicial mind that during all this period from 6 th May
2010 i.e. arrest of the appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale
to 3rd August 2010, there was ample opportunity to prosecution
witnesses to see appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale. In this
view of the matter, evidence regarding TIP held by the prosecution
avk 21/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
after three months of arrest of the appellant / accused no.1
Ramesh Bhosale does not seem to be trustworthy and reliable. In
the result, as evidence regarding identity of appellant / accused
no.1 Ramesh Bhosale is found to be suspect, the benefit of doubt
needs to be given to him.
16 It is also worthwhile to note that though according to
the prosecution case, the victim of the crime in question was
threatened with a sword, during the course of investigation,
weapon of the offence was to seized. Similarly, as seen from the
evidence adduced by the prosecution, no recovery was effected at
the instance of appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale. This is
a factor which creates doubt in the version of the prosecution.
17 Now let us examine whether the charge for the offence
punishable under Section 411 of the IPC can be held to be proved
against the appellant / accused no.3 Anand Raimokar. Section
411 of the IPC reads thus :
avk 22/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
Section 411 - Dishonestly receiving stolen
property -- Whoever dishonestly receives or retains
any stolen property, knowing or having reason to
believe the same to be stolen property, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, or with
fine, or with both.
18 As seen from the evidence of PW5 Ramesh Chaudhary,
a panch witness to memorandum statement Exhibit 70 of co-
accused Tanhya Kale, in presence of PW9 Vishnu Pawar,
Investigating Officer, the said accused had disclosed that he will
produce gold ornaments and will show the place and person to
whom and where those gold ornaments were sold out. As seen
from evidence of this panch witness and that of the Investigator,
police team accompanied by co-accused Tanhya Kale and panch
witness proceeded to Belwandi and co-accused Tanhya Kale
pointed out appellant / accused no.3 Anand Raimokar. Then, as
per evidence of these witnesses, this appellant / accused
produced gold ornaments which came to be seized by recovery
panchnama Exhibit 71. Ultimately, as seen from evidence of PW1
avk 23/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
Kalpana Kalaskar, she identified those gold ornaments to be
belonging to her and which were robbed by robbers during the
incident. According to the prosecution case, appellant / accused
no.3 Anand Raimokar having reason to believe that those
ornaments were stolen ornaments, had purchased the same from
accused persons, making him liable for penal consequences
prescribed by Section 411 of the IPC.
19 Bare perusal of provisions of Section 411 of the IPC
makes it clear that the prosecution must establish that the accused
had reason to believe that the property which he receives is a
stolen property. The word "believe" used in Section 411 of the IPC
indicates that it is necessary to point out that the circumstances
were such that a reasonable man must have felt convinced that
the property in which he is dealing is a stolen property. Even if it
is established that the accused suspected that the property might
have been a stolen property, he is not liable to be guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC. Carelessness on
the part of the accused does not make him liable for penal
avk 24/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
consequences of Section 411 of the IPC. In the case in hand, it is
the stand of the prosecution that appellant / accused no.3 Anand
Raimokar is a goldsmith dealing in sale and purchase of gold
ornaments, having a jewellery shop, named and styled as Shweta
Jewellers. This implies that he must be purchasing and selling out
gold ornaments and at the most one may infer that he was
negligent in purchasing gold ornaments from the accused persons
but it cannot be said that he had reason to believe that the articles
purchased by him was stolen property. As such, conviction of
appellant / accused no.3 Anand Raimokar for the offence
punishable under Section 411 of the IPC must fail.
20 In the result, the following order :
i) Criminal Appeal No.974 of 2015 and Criminal
Appeal No.246 of 2012 are allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in
Sessions CaseNo.572 of 2010 on 20th August 2015
so far as it relates to convicting appellant /
avk 25/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale for the offence
punishable under Section 392 of the IPC and
sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for 5 years and directing him to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo further
simple imprisonment for 15 days, is quashed and
set aside.
iii)The appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale is
acquitted of the offence punishable under Section
392 of the IPC.
iv) The impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in
Sessions Case.No.572 of 2010 on 4th January
2012 so far as it relates to convicting the
appellant / accused no.3 Anand Raimokar of
the offence punishable under Section 411 of the
IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 2 years and directing him to
pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo
avk 26/27
201-APPEAL-974-2015-APPEAL-246-2012-J.doc
further simple imprisonment for 1 month, is
quashed and set aside.
v) The appellant / accused no. 3 Anand Raimokar
is acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 411 of the IPC.
vi) Both appellants / accused be released forthwith
from the prison, if not required in any other
case.
vii) Fine amount, if any, paid by them, be refunded
to them.
(A. M. BADAR, J.)
avk 27/27
