{"id":10743,"date":"2009-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009"},"modified":"2015-06-13T14:49:33","modified_gmt":"2015-06-13T09:19:33","slug":"ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ajay vs The Stte Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Ajay vs The Stte Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar<\/div>\n
                                 (1)\n\n\n\n\n              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY\n\n                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 371 OF 2007\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     Ajay s\/o Dinesh Pimple,\n     R\/o Murtijapur Shivar,\n     Near Colour Factory, Beed bypass\n     Road, Aurangabad.                                      APPELLANT\n             VERSUS\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n     The Stte of Maharashtra                              RESPONDENT\n\n                                 WITH\n\n                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 338 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n     Sunil s\/o Shamalu Pawar,\n\n     Aurangabad.\n             VERSUS\n                      \n     R\/o Hamalwada Railway Station,\n                                                            APPELLANT\n\n     The State of Maharashtra                               RESPONDENT\n                     \n             .....\n     Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni, advocate for the appellants\n     in both appeals.\n     Mr. Dilip Bankar Patil, A.P.P. for the respondent\/\n     State in both appeals.\n      \n\n\n             .....\n   \n\n\n\n                                    CORAM: V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                   Date: 28th January, 2009\n<\/p>\n
                                   ————————-\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGEMENT :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     1.       Both     the appeals are being disposed of by the<\/p>\n
     common   judgement in as much as they arise out of same<\/p>\n
     judgement rendered in Sessions Case No.           114 of 2007.<\/p>\n
     2.       By the impugned judgement, the appellants were<\/p>\n
     convicted   for     offences punishable under section              307<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:17:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (2)<\/span><\/p>\n
     read with section 34, section 399 and section 332 read<\/p>\n
     with     section        34    of    the I.P.      Code.         For        offence<\/p>\n
     punishable          under section 307 read with section 34                       of<\/p>\n
     the     I.P.        Code, each of them was sentenced to                     suffer<\/p>\n
     rigorous        imprisonment for term of five (5) years                        and<\/p>\n
     to     pay     fine     of Rs.      2000\/-, in     default         to       suffer<\/p>\n
     rigorous        imprisonment for one (1) year.                  For        offence<\/p>\n
     punishable          under section 399 of the I.P.                Code,        each<\/p>\n
     of     them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment<\/p>\n
     for     five (5) years and to pay fine of Rs.                      2000\/-, in<\/p>\n
     default        to     suffer rigorous imprisonment for one                     (1)<\/p>\n
     year.        For offence punishable under section 332                         read<\/p>\n
     with     section<\/p>\n
                             34 of the I.P.        Code, each of them               was<\/p>\n
     sentenced        to suffer rigorous imprisonment for term of<\/p>\n
     two (2) years.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     3.           Briefly      stated, the prosecution case is                     that<\/p>\n
     A.P.I.         Shri     Ghuge      (PW8)    and   other       police         staff<\/p>\n
     members        were on patrol duty during night                  intervening<\/p>\n
     between 27th and 28th November, 2006.                     While they were<\/p>\n
     moving in a police van, at about 3 a.m., they received<\/p>\n
     instructions           from   the police Control Room                 to     visit<\/p>\n
     Shreyanagar locality where some dacoits had reportedly<\/p>\n
     attempted        to     commit the dacoity.           The     police         party<\/p>\n
     immediately           proceeded     to     the said     locality.             They<\/p>\n
     noticed        that     some dacoits were running               through        the<\/p>\n
     area.        They gave chase to the suspected dacoits.                         The<\/p>\n
     suspected        persons      ran towards residential                house       of<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:17:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
     Justice Chapalgaonkar.              They had entered compound of a<\/p>\n
     bungalow          named “Venu Niwas”.        While the police                 party<\/p>\n
     members        were giving chase, the members of the gang of<\/p>\n
     suspected         dacoits      took out some stones from                  bundles<\/p>\n
     which were with them and started pelting the stones at<\/p>\n
     the     police       party.       Appellant Ajay injured               informant<\/p>\n
     Deepak Choudhary (PW1) by means of knife in the course<\/p>\n
     of     the     attempt made by the police to overpower                          him.<\/p>\n
     Some     witnesses          were also injured by            the      appellants<\/p>\n
     while        running away.        A.P.I.     Ghuge (PW8) resorted                  to<\/p>\n
     firing.            The     appellants       were     thereafter           nabbed.<\/p>\n
     However, their three (3) unknown accomplices fled away<\/p>\n
     in the dark.\n<\/p>\n
                            A knife was recovered from possession of<\/p>\n
     appellant         Ajay.       A    report     was      lodged        by      Deepak<\/p>\n
     Choudhary         (PW1) who was the driver of the                    patrolling<\/p>\n
     van     in respect of the alleged incident.                       He and other<\/p>\n
     injured        persons were referred to the Medical                       Officer<\/p>\n
     for     clinical         examination.       On the basis of              material<\/p>\n
     gathered          during     course   of investigation,                both      the<\/p>\n
     appellants          were chargesheeted for offences punishable<\/p>\n
     under        section       307 read with section 34, section                     399<\/p>\n
     and     section        332    read with section 34              of     the      I.P.<\/p>\n
     Code.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     4.           To     the charge (Exh-8), the appellants pleaded<\/p>\n
     not     guilty.        They denied truth into the                 accusations.<\/p>\n
     According to them, they were falsely implicated in the<\/p>\n
     criminal case.             They asserted that they were picked up<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:17:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                           (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
     from Railway Station platform on suspicion.<\/p>\n
     5.          At        the trial, the prosecution examined in all<\/p>\n
     ten     (10)          witnesses     in     support of             its      case.         The<\/p>\n
     learned           Sessions        Judge         accepted          the      prosecution<\/p>\n
     evidence.              The     learned     Sessions              Judge       held       that<\/p>\n
     necessary          ingredients       of         the         offences         were       duly<\/p>\n
     proved.          The appellants were accordingly convicted and<\/p>\n
     sentenced as described hereinabove.<\/p>\n
     6.          Mr.          Kulkarni,        for         the      appellants,             would<\/p>\n
     submit       that        the appellants cannot be                     convicted          for<\/p>\n
     offence punishable under section 307 read with section<\/p>\n
     34    of     the        I.P.      Code     when        the       alleged         incident<\/p>\n
     occurred          within a short span without there being                                any<\/p>\n
     element          of     enmity     between the              appellants           and     the<\/p>\n
     victims.              He would further submit that mere                          presence<\/p>\n
     of    the        appellants near the place is                       not      sufficient<\/p>\n
     proof       of their being members of a gang of dacoits nor<\/p>\n
     it    can        be     said that they had              made        preparation            to<\/p>\n
     commit       the dacoity alongwith the so called three                                   (3)<\/p>\n
     absconding            accused.     He would further submit that the<\/p>\n
     Sessions              Court      committed             patent           error          while<\/p>\n
     appreciating            the     evidence of the witnesses and                           that<\/p>\n
     the     material             on record is insufficient to prove                          the<\/p>\n
     offences under sections 307 and 399 of the I.P.                                       Code.<\/p>\n
     He,     however,             does not press the appeal                    against        the<\/p>\n
     order       of        conviction     and sentence                rendered         by     the<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:17:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
     Sessions        Court        for offence punishable under                 section<\/p>\n
     332     read        with     section 34 of the         I.P.         Code.        Mr.<\/p>\n
     Dilip        Bankar        Patil,   learned       A.P.P.        supports         the<\/p>\n
     impugned judgement.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     7.           With     the help of learned counsel and                     learned<\/p>\n
     A.P.P.,         I      have     gone      through      the        record         and<\/p>\n
     proceedings.            The versions of Deepak Choudhary (PW1),<\/p>\n
     Mohammad        Azar (PW7) and A.P.I.             Shri Ghuge (PW8),                if<\/p>\n
     considered          cumulatively,         would show that            they       were<\/p>\n
     members        of the patrolling party at the material time.<\/p>\n
     Their        versions go to show that at about 3 a.m.,                          they<\/p>\n
     received<\/p>\n
                     instructions         from the police            Control         Room<\/p>\n
     that     some dacoits had reportedly attempted thefts                              in<\/p>\n
     Shreyanagar locality.               The versions of these witnesses<\/p>\n
     would        make it amply clear that when they reached near<\/p>\n
     said     locality,          they    saw    that     five      (5)      suspected<\/p>\n
     dacoits        were running from near proximity of house                           of<\/p>\n
     Justice Chapalgaonkar.              When the suspected dacoits saw<\/p>\n
     the     police party, they resorted to pelting of                           stones<\/p>\n
     on     the     police        vehicle.     A chase was         given       to     the<\/p>\n
     members of the suspected gang of dacoits.                          The version<\/p>\n
     of     Deepak Choudhary (PW1) reveals that he was working<\/p>\n
     as     driver of the police van No.                 MH-20\/U-9678, at the<\/p>\n
     material time.             He deposed that appellant Sunil pelted<\/p>\n
     a     stone     at his head and, therefore, he was                       injured.<\/p>\n
     His version purports to show that the appellant – Ajay<\/p>\n
     ran     towards        him with a knife, but then A.P.I.                        Shri<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:17:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                             (6)<\/span><\/p>\n
     Ghuge     (PW8)        fired       a    bullet at       him.         His     version<\/p>\n
     indicates        as     to        how the appellants           challenged           the<\/p>\n
     police        party.         He     alongwith        Mohammad         Azar        (PW7)<\/p>\n
     overpowered           appellant        Sunil.        His     version         further<\/p>\n
     discloses        that Amol Jain (PW2) came out of the nearby<\/p>\n
     bungalow        when     appellant           Ajay     jumped         inside         his<\/p>\n
     bungalow from the compound wall.                      Amol Jain (PW2) gave<\/p>\n
     chase to appellant Ajay.                  At that time, appellant Ajay<\/p>\n
     knifed        Amol     Jain (PW2) and, therefore, A.P.I.                           Shri<\/p>\n
     Ghuge     (PW8) immediately fired at Ajay.                         Some      members<\/p>\n
     of     the locality gathered around the place.                            Appellant<\/p>\n
     Ajay     was     overpowered            by Mohammad Azar             (PW7).         The<\/p>\n
     F.I.R.\n<\/p>\n
                    (Exh-12) is corroborated by Deepak                         Choudhary<\/p>\n
     (PW1).\n<\/p>\n
     8.         There         is       no     effective          cross-examination<\/p>\n
     directed        against the witnesses.                In fact, it was               not<\/p>\n
     even suggested to them that the appellants were picked<\/p>\n
     up     from     the     Railway station platform.                     The      entire<\/p>\n
     cross-examination             comprises of mere suggestions.                          No<\/p>\n
     substantial            material          is         gathered         from         their<\/p>\n
     cross-examination             so       as to dislodge their               versions.<\/p>\n
     Their versions are corroborated by Amol Jain (PW2) and<\/p>\n
     Dinanath        (PW5).         It is pertinent to note                  that       Amol<\/p>\n
     Jain     and Dinanath are independent witnesses.                             Both of<\/p>\n
     them     narrated as to how the incident occurred.                               Their<\/p>\n
     versions        would     make it amply clear that in                       the     wee<\/p>\n
     hours,        there     was chase given by the police party                           to<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:17:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (7)<\/span><\/p>\n
     the     suspected members of the gang of dacoits.                        It      is<\/p>\n
     worthy        to     be     noted that Amol Jain       (PW2)        sustained<\/p>\n
     bleeding           injury    during course of the incident.                     His<\/p>\n
     version        purports        to show that the appellant              –       Ajay<\/p>\n
     gave     blow        of knife on his person, but since                 he       had<\/p>\n
     raised firearm, the blow was received on his hand.<\/p>\n
     9.         The        injury       certificates issued by           PW10        Dr.<\/p>\n
     Wanole        would       also lend assurance to the versions                    of<\/p>\n
     the     prosecution witnesses.              These injury certificates<\/p>\n
     (Exh-26        to Exh-29) would indicate that injured Deepak<\/p>\n
     Choudhary          (PW1),      Mohammad Azar (PW7) and            Amol         Jain<\/p>\n
     (PW2)<\/p>\n
               were examined with promptitude.                  It was noticed<\/p>\n
     that     they        had received the injuries as shown in                      the<\/p>\n
     medical certificates (Exh-26, Exh-28 and Exh-30).<\/p>\n
     10.        The        version of Dinanath (PW5) further reveals<\/p>\n
     that     during        the scuffle with the suspected                 dacoits,<\/p>\n
     some     articles were dropped by those suspects by                            side<\/p>\n
     of     the house.           Those articles included an iron tommy,<\/p>\n
     two     (2)        scarfs, battery, two (2) pairs of                chappals,<\/p>\n
     etc.      Those           articles    were recovered from           the        spot<\/p>\n
     under     a        panchanama.        The   panchanama       of     the        spot<\/p>\n
     (Exh-15)           is duly corroborated by Shrimant (PW3).                     His<\/p>\n
     version        reveals that the window of house situated                         on<\/p>\n
     plot     No.        19 was found broken.        One of its plank                was<\/p>\n
     bent.         The     police       recovered screw     drivers,            a    big<\/p>\n
     knife,        etc.         Thus,     his version and the          version        of<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:17:08 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (8)<\/span><\/p>\n
     Dinanath          correspond         to    each    other      in     so     far      as<\/p>\n
     recovery          of     the articles is concerned.                 His     version<\/p>\n
     further        shows          that   the police party           visited         other<\/p>\n
     house        property          and one (1) shop.          At the       shop,       the<\/p>\n
     shutter was half-open and the articles inside the shop<\/p>\n
     were         found           lying        helter-skelter.            These         are<\/p>\n
     taletelling circumstances.                   At odd hours of the night,<\/p>\n
     when     the half shutter of the shop was found open                               and<\/p>\n
     the     articles were lying scattered, the only deducible<\/p>\n
     inference would be that there was an attempt to commit<\/p>\n
     housebreaking                and theft in the shop.           What transpires<\/p>\n
     from     the       prosecution evidence is that the                       group      of<\/p>\n
     five     (5)<\/p>\n
                        burglars had attempted the burglary in                          the<\/p>\n
     wee     hours,          but     some residents of the              locality        had<\/p>\n
     informed          the police about the attempted dacoity.                            It<\/p>\n
     was     at     the       nick of time that the             police         help     was<\/p>\n
     available.              It was due to such immediate action                       that<\/p>\n
     the     bid to commit the dacoity could be foiled.                              There<\/p>\n
     is ample evidence on record to show that after frantic<\/p>\n
     efforts,           the         appellants         could     be       overpowered<\/p>\n
     notwithstanding               strong resistance on their part.                     The<\/p>\n
     empty        cartridges          of the bullets fired at               them       were<\/p>\n
     recovered from the near the house.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     11.          So        far     as the charge for offence               punishable<\/p>\n
     under        section          307 read with section 34 of                 the     I.P.<\/p>\n
     Code     is       concerned, I find considerable substance                           in<\/p>\n
     the      contention             of   Mr.       Kulkarni.           The      medical<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:17:09 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 (9)<\/span><\/p>\n
     certificate would show that simple injuries were found<\/p>\n
     on     the person of Dilip Choudhary and other witnesses.<\/p>\n
     The     version of Dr.                Wanole (PW10) would show that not<\/p>\n
     a     single injury shown in the injury certificate could<\/p>\n
     have     been        caused       by means of          sharp         edged        weapon.<\/p>\n
     Needless to say use of the knife is improbabalized due<\/p>\n
     to the medical opinion.                     It is worthwhile to note that<\/p>\n
     the     knife        was        not sent to office              of     the       Chemical<\/p>\n
     Analyser        in     order          to verify whether there                    was     any<\/p>\n
     stain     of        human blood on the edge thereof.                         All       said<\/p>\n
     and     done, in the absence of the necessary evidence to<\/p>\n
     show that the intention of the appellants was to cause<\/p>\n
     death     of<\/p>\n
                         either of the victims, they could not                              have<\/p>\n
     been     convicted           for offence punishable under                        section<\/p>\n
     307     read        with        section 34 of the            I.P.          Code.         The<\/p>\n
     learned        A.P.P.           would,       however,           submit       that        the<\/p>\n
     appellants           could       be    convicted          for     an       offence        of<\/p>\n
     attempt        to     cause death of the prosecution                         witnesses<\/p>\n
     though     the        injuries were not serious.                      It is        argued<\/p>\n
     that the appellants had given threats to the witnesses<\/p>\n
     to     kill members of the police party if the chase                                    was<\/p>\n
     continued.            At the most, such acts of the                         appellants<\/p>\n
     could     be        treated as resistance to the act                         of        their<\/p>\n
     arrests.            If they had any intention to cause death of<\/p>\n
     the      members           of     police          party    or        the     witnesses,<\/p>\n
     ordinarily multiple and serious wounds would have been<\/p>\n
     inflicted        by        them       in    the     course       of        the    alleged<\/p>\n
     assault.            There was no injury found on any vital part<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:17:09 :::<\/span>
\n                                             (10)<\/span><\/p>\n
     of     the     body of the injured witnesses.                    Under       these<\/p>\n
     circumstances,             I    find    it difficult to          sustain        the<\/p>\n
     conviction          of     the appellants for offence               punishable<\/p>\n
     under        section       307 read with section 34 of                the      I.P.<\/p>\n
     Code.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     12.          It     may be mentioned that learned advocate Mr.<\/p>\n
     Kulkarni referred to certain authorities, which are as<\/p>\n
     follows :<\/p>\n
\n\n\n     (i)          Parsuram Pandey and others v. State of Bihar<\/a>\n                  2005 ALL MR (Cri) 796 (S.C.)\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     (ii)         Jai Narain Mishra and others v.\n                          \n                  The State of Bihar\n                  1972 CRI.L.J.469\n\n     (iii)        Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar and others v.\n                         \n                  State of Gujarat\n                  AIR<\/a> 1996 S.C. 3236\n\n     (i)          Hari Kishan and State of Haryana v.\n                  Sukhbir Singh and others\n                  AIR<\/a> 1988 S.C. 2127\n      \n   \n\n\n\n     Learned A.P.P.             also referred to \"State\n                                                  State of Maharashtra\n\n     v.     Balram Bama Patil and others<\/a>\" AIR 1983 S.C.                             305.\n                                                                                    305<\/span>\n\n     However,       it     is       not     necessary    to      consider         these\n\n\n\n\n\n     authorities          in     view of the peculiar           fact       situation\n\n<\/pre>\n
     which may be distinguished on factual matrix.<\/p>\n
     13.          Coming       to    the    question       of     legality           and<\/p>\n
     propriety         of conviction for offence punishable                       under<\/p>\n
     section       399 of the I.P.            Code, I find that there                are<\/p>\n
     incriminating             circumstances brought on surface of the<\/p>\n
     record       which        would      prove that the        appellants          were<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:17:09 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (11)<\/span><\/p>\n
     members       of      the gang of dacoits and had                reached        the<\/p>\n
     place       with      preparation for committing                  offence         of<\/p>\n
     dacoity.        Section 399 reads as follows :<\/p>\n
                  “399.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   399.      Making preparation to commit dacoity.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Whoever         makes any preparation for               committing<\/p>\n
                 dacoity,         shall     be      punished      with       rigorous<\/p>\n
                 imprisonment         for        a term which may extend               to<\/p>\n
                 ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     14.         The      version of independent witness – Dinanath<\/p>\n
     (PW5) would make it amply clear that an iron tommy and<\/p>\n
     other<\/p>\n
                 articles were recovered from the place.                        It     is<\/p>\n
     also     proved       that one of the shops was                subjected          to<\/p>\n
     attempted         burglary.          The version of        Shrimant          (PW3)<\/p>\n
     reveals       that      at     Gautam Super       Shoppee        situated         in<\/p>\n
     Sahakarnagar area, the half portion of the shutter was<\/p>\n
     found       opened.          The articles in the shop             were       found<\/p>\n
     lying       helter-skelter.           The appellants did not explain<\/p>\n
     as     to    what      was     reason of       their    presence         in     the<\/p>\n
     locality at such odd hours.                   The independent witnesses<\/p>\n
     like     Amol        Jain     (PW2)    and Dinanath        (PW5)        have      no<\/p>\n
     business        to     falsely implicate the            appellants.             The<\/p>\n
     absence       of any explanation by the appellants would be<\/p>\n
     an additional piece of circumstantial evidence against<\/p>\n
     them     completing the chain establishing the charge                             of<\/p>\n
     preparation for committing dacoity.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:17:09 :::<\/span>\n                                         (12)<\/span>\n\n     15.        Mr.      Kulkarni invited my attention to certain\n\n     observations in \"Chaturi\n                      Chaturi Yadav and others v.                       State of\n\n     Bihar<\/a>\"     AIR     1989 S.C.       1412.\n                                        1412    It was a case in             which\n\n     the     prosecution        alleged that the group of eight                 (8)\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n     persons        was found in the school premises which was in\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n     the     proximity       of the market place.        The      Apex        Court\n\n     held     that mere presence of the appellants inside                       the\n\n     premises        could    not give rise to inference that                  they\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n     had     assembled with an intention to commit offence                        of\n\n     dacoity.        The Apex Court observed that the possibility\n\n<\/pre>\n
     that the appellants may have collected for the purpose<\/p>\n
     of murdering somebody or committing some other offence<\/p>\n
     could     not<\/p>\n
                       be safely eliminated.        That is why it              was<\/p>\n
     held     that an offence punishable under section 399                        of<\/p>\n
     the     I.P.     Code was not made out.        The fact          situation<\/p>\n
     in     the present case is altogether different.                    Herein,<\/p>\n
     there     is     evidence to show that unsuccessful                 attempt<\/p>\n
     was     made to commit burglary at a shop and thereafter,<\/p>\n
     the residents had tipped the police.                The police party<\/p>\n
     members        caught the appellants in the proximity of the<\/p>\n
     place      where        the    attempted    burglary         was         being<\/p>\n
     committed.         The appellants failed to explain why they<\/p>\n
     had     been to the locality at such odd hours.                    The iron<\/p>\n
     tommy     and     knife       were recovered from       place       of     the<\/p>\n
     incident.         The irresistible conclusion would be                    that<\/p>\n
     the     appellants       alongwith three (3) accomplices,                  who<\/p>\n
     successfully        fled      away, were members of the gang                 of<\/p>\n
     dacoits and had made preparation to commit the offence<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:17:09 :::<\/span>
\n                                      (13)<\/span><\/p>\n
     of      dacoity.        Obviously,     the      impugned         order         of<\/p>\n
     conviction       and sentence for offence punishable                      under<\/p>\n
     section        399 of the I.P.       Code is quiet legal,               proper<\/p>\n
     and correct.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     16.         In the result, the appeals are partly allowed.<\/p>\n
     The impugned judgement to the extent of conviction and<\/p>\n
     sentence         of    both   the     appellants,           for       offence<\/p>\n
     punishable       under section 307 read with section 34                        of<\/p>\n
     the     I.P.     Code is set aside.          Both the appellants are<\/p>\n
     acquitted        of the offence punishable under section 307<\/p>\n
     read with section 34 of the I.P.               Code.        The remaining<\/p>\n
     part        of   the<\/p>\n
                             impugned      judgement       in      respect          of<\/p>\n
     conviction       and    sentence for the         offence         punishable<\/p>\n
     under       section 399 of the I.P.          Code and in respect of<\/p>\n
     offence punishable under section 332 read with section<\/p>\n
     34     of    the I.P.     Code is, however,          maintained.             The<\/p>\n
     period of detention\/sentence already undergone by both<\/p>\n
     the     appellants      shall be treated as set-off,                  as     per<\/p>\n
     provisions under section 428 of the Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
     Code.        The muddemal articles shall be destroyed after<\/p>\n
     lapse of the appeal period.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                        [V.R. KINGAONKAR]
\n                                                              JUDGE<\/p>\n
     NPJ\/CRIAPL371-07-338-08<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:17:09 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Ajay vs The Stte Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2009 Bench: V.R. Kingaonkar (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 371 OF 2007 Ajay s\/o Dinesh Pimple, R\/o Murtijapur Shivar, Near Colour Factory, Beed bypass Road, Aurangabad. APPELLANT VERSUS The Stte of Maharashtra RESPONDENT […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10743","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAjay vs The Stte Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ajay vs The Stte Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-13T09:19:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ajay vs The Stte Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-13T09:19:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2519,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Ajay vs The Stte Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-13T09:19:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ajay vs The Stte Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ajay vs The Stte Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ajay vs The Stte Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-13T09:19:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ajay vs The Stte Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-13T09:19:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009"},"wordCount":2519,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009","name":"Ajay vs The Stte Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-13T09:19:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ajay-vs-the-stte-of-maharashtra-on-28-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ajay vs The Stte Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10743","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10743"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10743\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10743"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10743"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10743"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}