Sanjeev Udhav Murkute vs The State Of Maharashtra
2017 Latest Caselaw 9632 Bom

pps                                      1 of 9                          40 jud 486-07.doc

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 486 OF 2007
          
         Sanjeev Udhav Murkute,
         aged 23 years, R/o.
         Garden near King Circle Rly. Stn,
         Matung (East),
         Mumbai,
         at present Kolhapur Jail                                   ..Appellant

                        v/s.

         The State of Maharashtra
         (At the instance of Borivali
         Police Station C.R.No. 150/05)                             ..Respondents

         Mr. Satyavrat Joshi for the Appellant.
         Mr. H.J.Dedhia, APP for the Respondent-State.
           
                                     CORAM :  SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED : DECEMBER 14, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT.

1. By this appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment dated

25th October, 2005 in Sessions Case No. 581 of 2005.

2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:-

The appellant herein was the accused no.1 in Sessions Case No.

581 of 2005. The appellant, along with two other co-accused and

one absconding accused were prosecuted for offence under Section

394, 342, 397, 398 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/

pps 2 of 9 40 jud 486-07.doc

25 of the Indian Arms Act and 37(i)(a) of Bombay Police Act. The

case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11 th April, 2005 between 12

to 12.15 p.m. PW1 Vishal who was working as a Sales Executive in

Vijay Sales was proceeding towards the bank to deposit cash of

Rs.8,01,710/-. He was accompanied by Raj Mahale-PW6. When they

came out of the showroom, four persons came toward them and

snatched away the bag containing cash of Rs.8,01,710/- from the

hands of PW1 Vishal and ran away from the spot of the incident.

The first informant and some of the employees from Vijay Sales

chased the said persons and with the help of some other by standers,

they managed to apprehend the three persons, but the fourth

accused managed to run away with cash.

3. Police were called to the spot and informed about the incident.

PW7- PSI Manohar Shinde recorded the statement of the first

informant and registered the crime. He conducted the scene of

offence panchanama, and took personal search of the accused

persons in presence of the panchas. He recovered two country made

revolvers from the appellant i.e. accused nos.1 and from accused

no.3. Further investigation was carried out by PW8 PI Bagul. Upon

completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.

pps 3 of 9 40 jud 486-07.doc

4. The case being Sessions triable, the same was committed to the

Sessions Court, Gr. Mumbai, Sewree. Charge was framed and

explained to the accused. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The

defence of the accused was of total denial.

5. The prosecution examined in all eight witnesses, statement of

accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Upon

considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge

acquitted the appellant and the accused no.3 for offence under

Section 394, 342 r/w. 34 of IPC and under section 3, 25 of Arms Act

as well as 37(i)(a) of the Bombay Police Act. The Sessions Judge

also acquitted the accused no.2 Jehangir of offence under Section

398 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge has

held the appellant-accused no.1 and the accused no.3 Vinod guilty of

the offence under Section 398 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced

them to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years. Being

aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant accused

no.1 has preferred this appeal.

6. Heard Shri Joshi, the learned Counsel for the appellant. He

has submitted that there is discrepancy as regards the date on which

pps 4 of 9 40 jud 486-07.doc

the incident had occurred. He has further submitted that the amount

which was allegedly stolen was not recovered from the appellant. He

therefore claims that the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt.

7. Shri Dedhia, the learned APP submits that the appellant and the

other co-accused were arrested on the spot. He has submitted that

the amount could not be recovered since one of the co-accused had

taken away the bag and as he was absconding and not apprehended,

the stolen amount could not be recovered. He has submitted that the

evidence of the first informant which is duly corroborated by the

other eye witness amply proves that the appellant herein was

involved in snatching the bag containing Rs.8,01,710/-. He has

submitted that the evidence adduced proves guilt of accused no.1

beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that the findings of the

learned Sessions Judge are based on the evidence on record and does

not warrant any interference.

8. I have perused the records. It is to be noted that the allegations

levelled against the appellant are that on the relevant date, he along

with others had snatched the bag containing the amount of

Rs.8,01,710/- from the hands of PW1. In this regard, the evidence

pps 5 of 9 40 jud 486-07.doc

of PW1 Vishal clearly indicates that he was working in Vijay Sales as

Sales Executive. The said showroom is situated at Borivali. He has

stated that on 10th April 2005, he and Raj Mahale were proceeding

towards the bank to deposit the amount. He has stated that as soon

as they came out of the showroom, three persons came to the spot,

they pointed out a countrymade revolver at him and snatched the

bag from his hands and fled away from the spot. He stated that he

chased the said person, who had snatched the bag and caught him.

Lateron, police came to the spot and he handed over the custody of

the said persons to the police. He had lodged the FIR which is at

Exhibit 10. He has confirmed the contents of the First Information

Report at Exhibit 10. In the cross examination he has stated that the

incident had taken place in a crowded locality. He has denied that no

such incident had taken place on the date of the incident.

9. The prosecution has also examine PW 6 Raj Mahale, who had

accompanied the first informant. At the relevant time PW6 was

working as a Salesman in Vijay Sales. The testimoney of PW6

indicates that on the date of incident, he was instructed by the

Manager to go to the bank along with PW1 Vishal. He has stated

that PW1 Vishal was carrying a bag containing cash and they were

pps 6 of 9 40 jud 486-07.doc

proceeding towards the bank to deposit the said amount. He has

stated that just as they crossed the road, one auto-rickshaw stopped

and 2-3 persons alighted from an auto-rickshaw. One person pointed

out a revolver at them and snatched the bag from the hands of PW1.

In the meantime, the security guard and others caught the three

persons. The police were called and the custody of the said three

persons were handed over to the police. He has identified the

appellant-accused no.1 as one of the person who was caught at the

spot.

10. PW4, Jyoti, was working as Manager in Vijay Sales. She has

deposed that PW1 was serving as Salesman. She has stated that on

10th April, 2005 at about 11.45 PW1 Vishal and PW6 Raj Mahale had

left the showroom to deposit the cash in Saraswat Bank. Just as they

crossed the road infront of the showroom, four people went towards

them. One of the persons tried to assault PW1 Vishal. Sensing

something was amiss, she informed the security guard to look into

the matter. She too rushed to the spot of the incident, and saw that

three persons were caught. She called the police by dialing 100. The

police came to the place of the incident and thereafter took the said

three persons into custody. She has identified the appellant as one

pps 7 of 9 40 jud 486-07.doc

of the persons who was caught by PW1 Vishal.

11. PW5 Javed has deposed that on 12.4.2005 at about 12.00 pm

he was on the first floor of Vijay Sales show room. He noticed that

some people had gathered outside the show room. When he went

outside the showroom he saw that some people who were trying to

snatch the amount were arrested. He has identified the appellant-

accused no.1 as one of the persons who was caught. He has stated

that later the police came to the spot of the incident, recorded their

statements and took custody of the accused, including the appellant

herein.

12. PW7 Manohar Shinde was the PSI attached to Borivali Police

Station. He has deposed that on 12.4.2005 at about 12.30 hours

while he was on duty at the police station, he received a call that

there was robbery at Vijay Sales. He alongwith his colleagues went

to the spot. He saw that a wireless van and the beat marshal were

already present at the spot, and the persons involved in the robbery

were already arrested. He recorded the first information report

lodged by the first informant. He registered the crime. He also

conducted the arrest panchanama and the scene of offence

pps 8 of 9 40 jud 486-07.doc

panchanama. This witness has also identified the appellant-accused

no.1 as one of the persons whose custody was taken from the place of

the incident.

13. The evidence of PW1 which is duly corroborated by PW6 amply

proves that at the relevant date he was proceeding to Saraswat Bank

to deposit the cash. When they crossed the road infront of Vijay

Sales, some persons got down from the rickshaw and one of them

snatched away the bag and they ran away from the place of the

incident. The evidence of this witness further indicates that they

along with the staff of Vijay Sales and members of public had chased

the said persons and caught the appellant-accused no.1. He was

subsequently handed over him to the police. The testimony of PW1

and PW6 is also duly corroborated by PW4, PW5 and PW7. The

evidence of these witnesses reveals that the appellant-accused no.1

was one of the persons who was involved in snatching the bag and

that he was caught while trying to run away from the spot of

incident. Apart from the discrepancy in the date, nothing much has

been brought on record to impeach the credibility of this witness. The

testimony of this witness which otherwise inspires confidence cannot

be discarded only on the basis of discrepancy in the date. Even

pps 9 of 9 40 jud 486-07.doc

otherwise, the discrepancy as regards the date of the incident is too

trivial to discard the evidence of the eye witnesses.

14. It is also pertinent to note that the FIR was lodged immediately

after the accused were caught. The custody of the accused was

handed over on the same day. Prompt lodging of the FIR and arrest

of the appellant-accused at the spot of the incident rules out the

possibility of false implication.

15. Having considered the entire evidence on record, in my

considered view, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the

appellant-accused of offence under Section 398 of Indian Penal Code.

The finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are based on the

evidence on record. The findings do not suffer from any infirmity.

The appeal has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)