{"id":64848,"date":"2010-07-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010"},"modified":"2015-11-02T01:35:47","modified_gmt":"2015-11-01T20:05:47","slug":"gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Gorakh Pandurang Mare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Gorakh Pandurang Mare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 July, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: J. H. Bhatia<\/div>\n
                                    1    Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw\n\n                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\nMhi\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2004\n                                     WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 512 OF 2004\n\n\n                          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2004\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n      1.    Gorakh Pandurang Mare                )\n            Age 20 yrs, occ-agriculturist,       )\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n            R\/o at Shirgaon, Tal.Mulshi,         )\n            Dist. Pune, now at Ramnagar\n                                 ig              )\n            Zopadpatti, Warje Malwadi, Pune.     )\n\n      2.    Lahu Maruti Gaudse,                  )\n                               \n            Age 21 yrs, occu: Painting and       )\n            Agiculturist, R\/o Mohari,            )\n            Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune.             ).. Appellants\n            both accused in Yerwada Central      )(Org.accused Nos. 1 & 2)\n             \n\n\n            Prison.                              )\n                         Versus\n          \n\n\n\n            The State of Maharashtra             .. Respondents\n\n      None for the appellants.\n     \n\n\n\n\n      Smt. V.R.Bhosale, APP, for the Respondent - State.\n\n      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 512 OF 2004\n\n      Anil @ Baba @ Narayan                      )\n\n\n\n\n\n      Jaywant Kandare,                           )\n      Age 28 years, occ: Rickshaw Driver,        )\n      R\/o. Kondawale, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune,   )\n      Present address at Shastinagar Sagar       )\n      Colony, Mokate Chawl, Kothrud, Pune.       )\n      (At present detaied at Yerawada Central    )\n\n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::\n                                   2    Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw\n\n    Prison)                                    ).. Appellant\n                                                (Orig.accused no.4)\n                 Vs.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n    The State of Maharashtra                   Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n    Shri S.V.Kotwal, Advocate for the appellant.\n    Smt. V.R.Bhosale, APP, for the Respondent - State.\n\n                                  CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J.\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n                                  JUDGMENT RESERVED ON 22.6.2010\n                                  JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 16.07.2010\n\n\n                                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    1.          Both these Appeals may be disposed of by common Judgment as the<\/p>\n
    accused persons have challenged the same Judgment and order whereby the<\/p>\n
    accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section<\/p>\n
    394 read with Section 397 and Sec. 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo R.I.\n<\/p>\n
    for eight years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000\/- each by the learned 13th Adhoc<\/p>\n
    Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.174 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW-1 Dattatraya Shinde was<\/p>\n
    on duty    at a petrol pump known as “Poonam Automobiles”                     situated at<\/p>\n
    Mangadewadi, Katraj, Pune, during the night between 16th and 17th December,<\/p>\n
    2000. There were several staff members present at the petrol pump. At about 4<\/p>\n
    or 4.30   a.m., on 17.12.2000, a Tata Sumo of white colour bearing No.<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                    3    Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    MH-15\/AH-2345 came to the petrol pump. Besides the driver, two more persons<\/p>\n
    were present in the vehicle. The driver asked PW-1 Dattatraya to fill in diesel of<\/p>\n
    Rs.800\/-. Accordingly, he filled diesel. During that time, other two persons also<\/p>\n
    came out from the vehicle and all these three persons, who were identified as<\/p>\n
    accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4, beat PW-1 Dattatraya and asked him as to where was the<\/p>\n
    manager and where were the keys. The accused No.4, who was the driver,<\/p>\n
    assaulted on the back and legs of Dattatraya with a Tommy or an iron rod. They<\/p>\n
    also disconnected telephone lines. Certain other workers, who were sleeping,<\/p>\n
    woke up due to kicking and due to enquiry about the keys of the Chest or treasury.\n<\/p>\n
    Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were also armed with pistols. The accused persons moved<\/p>\n
    the Chest upto the door of the cabin, but as it was very heavy, they could not move<\/p>\n
    it out and they forced the other workers to help them in removing the Chest and<\/p>\n
    loading in the vehicle of the accused persons. Then the accused persons went<\/p>\n
    away by the vehicle towards Pune side. After the incident, the matter was<\/p>\n
    reported to the police. Exhibit 128 is the FIR lodged by PW-1 Dattatraya. During<\/p>\n
    investigation, in all four persons were arrested by the police. They included<\/p>\n
    accused No.3, who was acquitted by the trial Court. During investigation, accused<\/p>\n
    Nos. 1,2 and 4 were identified by the witnesses from that petrol pump. The Chest<\/p>\n
    was recovered. Different amounts of cash were recovered at the instance of the<\/p>\n
    accused persons. After investigation, charge-sheet was field and then the case<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                   4     Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    was committed to the Court of Sessions. On behalf of prosecution, in all 19<\/p>\n
    witnesses were examined. Several documents were placed on record. After<\/p>\n
    hearing the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced accused Nos. 1, 2 and<\/p>\n
    4 as stated earlier, while accused No.3 was acquitted for want of any evidence.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          Accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed Criminal Appeal No.558\/2004, while<\/p>\n
    accused No.4 preferred Criminal Appeal No.512\/2004. At the outset, it may be<\/p>\n
    stated that Mr. S.M.Suryavanshi, Advocate, through whom the Appeal was filed<\/p>\n
    by accused No.1 and 2 did not turn up at the time of final hearing of the Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    However, Mr. S.V.Kotwal, Advocate, for the accused No.4, on request of the<\/p>\n
    Court, argued the case on behalf of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 also.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          Heard Mrs. Bhosale,the learned APP and Mr. Kotwal, the learned<\/p>\n
    Counsel for the accused.\n<\/p>\n
    5.          Mr. Kotwal mainly contended that identification is not beyond<\/p>\n
    suspicion and, therefore, cannot be relied. He also contended that the accused No.<\/p>\n
    2 was found in possession of a plastic pistol which cannot be treated as a deadly<\/p>\n
    weapon.   Similarly, accused No.4 had allegedly used a tommy or a rod for<\/p>\n
    assaulting on the legs and lower part of the body and the manner in which it was<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                    5    Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    allegedly used could have never caused death or grievous hurt.                  Therefore,<\/p>\n
    accused Nos. 2 and 4 could not be convicted with help of Sec. 397. He contends<\/p>\n
    that at the most, the accused Nos. 2 and 4 could have been convicted for the<\/p>\n
    offence punishable under Section 394 read with Sec.34 IPC and the sentence<\/p>\n
    awarded by the trial Court is very heavy. According to him, if sec. 397 could not<\/p>\n
    be invoked, the trial Court could not have awarded such heavy sentence.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          On the other hand, the learned APP contended that the accused Nos.1,<\/p>\n
    2 and 4 have been duly identified not only during trial before the Court, but also<\/p>\n
    during test identification parade and this has been proved by the Special Executive<\/p>\n
    Magistrate PW-3 Kantilal. She also contended that the tommy i.e. iron rod in the<\/p>\n
    hands of accused No.4 could be treated as a deadly weapon which could cause<\/p>\n
    death of a person and, therefore, Sec. 397 was rightly invoked by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
    7.          Out of the 19 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1<\/p>\n
    Dattatraya Shinde, PW-2 Ramesh and PW-17 Gorakh                Hargude are the eye-\n<\/p>\n
    witnesses about the incident. Evidence of these witnesses reveals that they were<\/p>\n
    working on the petrol pump known as “Poonam Automobiles” at Katraj. PW-1<\/p>\n
    Dattatraya deposed that on 16.12.2000 at about 3.30 to 4 a.m. he woke up. At that<\/p>\n
    time, a Tata Sumo Jeep came from Pune side to the petrol pump. He identified<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                    6    Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    accused No.4 as driver of the Jeep. According to him, the driver came out from<\/p>\n
    the Jeep and asked him to fill diesel of Rs.800\/-. As per the instructions given by<\/p>\n
    him, he filled diesel in the Jeep. While PW-1 Dattatraya was filling diesel,<\/p>\n
    accused No.4 – the driver was standing just near his right side and two persons,<\/p>\n
    who were sitting in the Jeep, got down from the Jeep and went to the back side<\/p>\n
    of Dattatraya. One of those two persons pointed a revolver at the back side of<\/p>\n
    PW-1 Dattatraya and the Jeep driver caught his waist. He was holding a tommy or<\/p>\n
    an iron rod. They asked him as to where is the key of the treasury box or Chest.\n<\/p>\n
    Dattatraya told him that key of the treasury box was not with him. On this, the<\/p>\n
    jeep driver assaulted on the rear side of his legs and back with the said tommy<\/p>\n
    and took him to the office. The other two persons, who had caught him, also led<\/p>\n
    him towards the office. They asked PW-1 Dattatraya as to where the manager<\/p>\n
    was. Accordingly, PW-1 Dattatraya showed him the place where the manager and<\/p>\n
    the billing clerk were sleeping. The accused, who was holding a revolver, pushed<\/p>\n
    him in the corner of the office and made him to stand there. . The jeep driver,<\/p>\n
    who was inside the counter, disconnected the telephone wire and also assaulted<\/p>\n
    near the ear of the billing clerk Santosh. One of them beat the manager and the<\/p>\n
    billing clerk   and two culprits made them stand by the side of               Dattatraya.\n<\/p>\n
    According to him, the treasury box or the Chest contained amount of Rs.1 lakh to<\/p>\n
    Rs.1,25,000\/-. The size of the box was 3 ft. in height and 4 ft. in width.              The<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                   7    Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    Treasury box could be removed by at least two persons. The person who was<\/p>\n
    holding revolver was standing while the two other culprits, including the jeep<\/p>\n
    driver, tried to move the treasury box and took it upto the door of the office.\n<\/p>\n
    However, they could not take it out and therefore, he forced the two workers of<\/p>\n
    the petrol pump to help them to take the treasury upto the jeep and then it was<\/p>\n
    loaded in the jeep. He gave the number of the Sumo Jeep as MH-15 AH-2345.\n<\/p>\n
    After that, the jeep went away towards Pune side. Dattatraya and other workers<\/p>\n
    took the billing clerk to Katraj for medical aid, while the Manager Dhumal went<\/p>\n
    to the police station which was 5 kms. from the petrol pump. PW-1 Dattatraya<\/p>\n
    identified accused No.1, 2 and 4 before the Court as the culprits. According to<\/p>\n
    him, accused No.2 Lahu was armed with revolver, while accused No.1 Gorakh<\/p>\n
    was also present along with accused Nos. 2 and 4.\n<\/p>\n
    8.          According to PW-2 Ramesh , there were 7 or 8 persons were on duty<\/p>\n
    at the petrol pump. At about 4 to 4.40 a.m. he woke up due to dash given to him<\/p>\n
    and he saw three persons; one was holding an iron rod and two were armed with<\/p>\n
    pistols. One of the persons, holding pistol, asked him about the key of the<\/p>\n
    treasury box. PW-2 told him that the key of the treasury used to remain in the<\/p>\n
    adjacent hotel. After that, the person armed with the iron rod tried to push the<\/p>\n
    treasury and brought it upto the door of the office. One of the persons having<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                     8    Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    pistol cut the telephone wire. The person, armed with iron rod, assaulted him on<\/p>\n
    his left arm with the rod and forced other two workers Hridyanath Nagvekar and<\/p>\n
    Dilip Rau to lift the treasury and carry it to the jeep. As the treasury could not fit<\/p>\n
    in the rear portion of the jeep, it was put in the open portion in the front or middle<\/p>\n
    bench in the jeep and those 3 persons plied the jeep and ran away towards Pune<\/p>\n
    Side. He also deposed that Santosh Bhondge, who was working as billing clerk,<\/p>\n
    had sustained bleeding injury on the left ear due to assault. According to him,<\/p>\n
    one of the workers, viz. Dhumal informed the owner of the petrol pump by<\/p>\n
    telephone. PW-2 Ramesh identified the accused Nos. 1 and 2 as the persons who<\/p>\n
    were armed with pistols and accused No.4 as the person who was armed with iron<\/p>\n
    rod. He also identified the treasury box which was later on seized. According to<\/p>\n
    him, after the incident, he went to the Police Chowky and then the injured persons<\/p>\n
    were taken to the hospital for treatment and then they were taken back to the<\/p>\n
    petrol pump. Police recorded the statements of the workers.\n<\/p>\n
    9.           The evidence on record shows that         accused Nos. 1 and 2 were<\/p>\n
    arrested on 30.12.2000 and the identification parade was conducted on 16.1.2001<\/p>\n
    in the Yerwada Jail premises. PW-3 – Kantilal, who was working as senior Clerk<\/p>\n
    in the Small Causes Court, was also appointed as Special Executive Magistrate<\/p>\n
    since the year 1999. As per the evidence of PW-3 Kantilal, on 12.1.2001, a<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                    9     Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    requisition letter was given to him by API Bere of Sahakar Nagar Police Station<\/p>\n
    to conduct test identification parade for two accused persons. Accordingly, on<\/p>\n
    16.1.2001, he arranged the test identification parade, wherein accused Nos. 1 and<\/p>\n
    2 were required to be identified in presence of panch witnesses. He deposed<\/p>\n
    about the procedure followed by him, which was also noted down in the form of<\/p>\n
    memorandum Ex.47. As per the memorandum prepared by him, PW-1 Dattatraya<\/p>\n
    did not identify the accused Nos. 1 and 2 during the identification                 parade.\n<\/p>\n
    However, PW-2 Ramesh identified both of them and also explained the role<\/p>\n
    played by them at the time of the incident. The evidence of PW-3 Kantilal shows<\/p>\n
    that one witness Nagvekar had also identified accused No.1 from the identification<\/p>\n
    parade, but said Nagvekar was not examined as a prosecution witness during trial.\n<\/p>\n
    It is settled position of law that the evidence of identification before the Court is<\/p>\n
    the substantive evidence while the identification during the test identification<\/p>\n
    parade during investigation may be used as corroborative piece of evidence, but is<\/p>\n
    not substantive evidence. However, where the accused was not known to the<\/p>\n
    witness prior to the incident, identification of the accused by such witness for the<\/p>\n
    first time before the Court without identification during T.I. parade, may not be<\/p>\n
    safe to rely upon. Therefore, prior identification during T.I. parade lends an<\/p>\n
    assurance that the witness has correctly identified the accused before the Court<\/p>\n
    during trial.   It appears that out of the 3 eye-witnesses, viz. PW-1 Dattatraya,<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                    10   Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    PW-2 Ramesh and PW-17 Gorakh, only PW-2 Ramesh had identified accused<\/p>\n
    No.1 and 2 during the T.I. parade as well as before the Court. PW-1 Dattatraya<\/p>\n
    claimed that he had identified accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 during T.I. parade and he<\/p>\n
    also identified them before the Court.        However, his evidence about the<\/p>\n
    identification of accused Nos. 1 and 2 during T.I. parade is not corroborated by the<\/p>\n
    evidence of PW-3 Kantilal and the memorandum Ex.47. From his admission, it<\/p>\n
    appears that PW-1 Dattatraya had seen accused persons in the Court before he was<\/p>\n
    called to give evidence. He also admitted that while standing outside the Court<\/p>\n
    Room, he could see the accused persons sitting in the Court Room. As he could<\/p>\n
    not identify accused Nos. 1 and 2 during T.I. parade, which was held within short<\/p>\n
    period of 17 days after the incident, he could not have identified them in the Court<\/p>\n
    after a period of more than one year. Therefore, much importance cannot be given<\/p>\n
    to the evidence of PW-1 Dattatraya as far as identification of accused Nos. 1 and 2<\/p>\n
    is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
    10.         PW-17 Gorakh Hargude was also one of the workers at the petrol<\/p>\n
    pump. He also deposed that at about 4 a.m. he had woken up after hearing the hue<\/p>\n
    and cry and he had seen 3 persons and the cashier and a helper from the petrol<\/p>\n
    pump were taking away treasury and keeping the treasury in the white coloured<\/p>\n
    Sumo Jeep. Thereafter Sumo Jeep went away towards Pune side. Gorakh also<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                    11    Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    deposed that accused Nos. 1,2 and 4 before the Court were the same persons who<\/p>\n
    had taken away the treasury in the Sumo Jeep, but the identification by this<\/p>\n
    witness does not appear to be reliable. He admitted in the cross-examination that<\/p>\n
    he had stated before the police that he could not give the exact description of those<\/p>\n
    3 persons who had taken away the treasury as he was in sleep at the time of the<\/p>\n
    incident. He was not called to identify the accused persons during T.I.parade.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, while the evidence of PW-17 Gorakh is useful only to prove that the<\/p>\n
    offence of robbery was committed at the petrol pump, his evidence does not help<\/p>\n
    the prosecution to fasten the liability on the accused persons.\n<\/p>\n
    11.         The evidence on record shows that accused No.4 was arrested on<\/p>\n
    17.1.2001 and he was required to be identified during T.I. parade held on 1.2.2001<\/p>\n
    in the Yerwada Jail premises. The T.I. parade was held by PW-3 Kantilal. During<\/p>\n
    the T.I. parade, PW-1 Dattatraya as well as PW-2 Ramesh identified accused No.4<\/p>\n
    – Anil @ Narayan J. Kandare. Both the witnesses also gave specific role played<\/p>\n
    by the accused No.4 during the incident.\n<\/p>\n
    12.         The learned Counsel for the accused persons pointed out that as per<\/p>\n
    the evidence of PW-1 Dattatraya, he had identified all the 3 accused persons<\/p>\n
    during T.I. parade which is not correct. Secondly, he deposed that accused No.4<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                    12   Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    was shown to him during first identification parade and this is also not correct as<\/p>\n
    per the report. He also pointed out that PW-2 Ramesh had deposed that accused<\/p>\n
    Nos. 1 and 4 were together shown to him during T.I. parade which is also not<\/p>\n
    correct.     I have already pointed out that as far as the PW-1 Dattatraya is<\/p>\n
    concerned, his evidence in respect of identification of accused Nos. 1 and 2 during<\/p>\n
    T.I. parade cannot be believed because that part of evidence is contrary to the<\/p>\n
    memorandum Ex.47. PW-2 Ramesh had identified all the three accused persons<\/p>\n
    during T.I. parade and this is supported by the evidence of PW-3 Kantilal and<\/p>\n
    memoranda of T.I. parades Exs. 47 and 48. Only because he deposed that accused<\/p>\n
    Nos. 1 and 4 were shown together in the T.I. parade, his evidence cannot be<\/p>\n
    discarded.     The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested on 30.12.2000 and the first<\/p>\n
    T.I. parade was held on 16.1.2001. while the accused No.4 was arrested on<\/p>\n
    17.1.2001. Therefore it was impossible to show accused No.4 during first T.I.\n<\/p>\n
    parade along with accused No.1. In my considered opinion, this inconsistency in<\/p>\n
    the evidence of PW-2 Ramesh is due to the lapse of memory because of the gap<\/p>\n
    of more than one year between T.I. Parade and recording of evidence.                    The<\/p>\n
    evidence of PW-2 Ramesh is otherwise consistent. There is nothing on record to<\/p>\n
    show that he had not identified any of them. Therefore, much importance cannot<\/p>\n
    be given to such minor inconsistency in that evidence. It may be noted that during<\/p>\n
    arguments, the learned Counsel contended that accused persons were taken out<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                   13   Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    from the police custody on 4 occasions and therefore there was possibility that<\/p>\n
    they might have been shown to the witnesses.        However,this will be merely<\/p>\n
    surmise which is not supported by any evidence. The Investigating Officer as<\/p>\n
    well as the witnesses specifically denied that the accused persons were shown to<\/p>\n
    them before T.I. parade. Therefore, I am convinced that while PW-2 Ramesh had<\/p>\n
    identified all the three accused persons PW-1 Dattatraya had also identified<\/p>\n
    accused No.4 who was the jeep driver and who had assaulted with iron rod or<\/p>\n
    tommy.\n<\/p>\n
    13.         The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the lapse of<\/p>\n
    period of 16\/17 days from the date of arrest till identification parade was long<\/p>\n
    enough and therefore, the identification of the accused persons during T.I. parade<\/p>\n
    cannot be given much importance. For this purpose, he relied upon State of<\/p>\n
    Andhra Pradesh vs. Dr. M.V.Ramana Reddy and Ors. AIR<\/a> 1991 SC 1938. In<\/p>\n
    that case, accused persons had surrendered on May 13, 1975. Identification parade<\/p>\n
    was held on May 23, 1975. The Supreme Court held that there was no valid<\/p>\n
    explanation for the delay. In that case, the said accused Nos. 3 and 5 were<\/p>\n
    acquitted by the High Court on several grounds. The Supreme Court refused to<\/p>\n
    interfere in the said order of acquittal. The unexplained delay was one of so many<\/p>\n
    reasons for their acquittal. The learned APP on the other hand contended that the<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                   14    Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    period of 16\/17 days could not be treated as very long period and, according to<\/p>\n
    her, there can be no fixed rule regarding period within which T.I. parade must be<\/p>\n
    held. She relied upon Pramod Mandal vs. State of Bihar 2005 SCC (Dri) 75<\/p>\n
    wherein the Supreme Court observed thus in para 20 :-\n<\/p>\n
                         “20. It is neither possible nor prudent to lay
\n             down any invariable rule as to the period within which a test
\n             identification parade must be held, or the number of<\/p>\n
             witnesses who must correctly identify the accused, to sustain<\/p>\n
             his conviction. These matters must be left to the courts of
\n             fact to decide in the facts and circumstances of each case. If<\/p>\n
             a rule is laid down prescribing a period within which the test
\n             identification parade must be held, it would only benefit the
\n             professional criminals in whose cases the arrests are delayed<\/p>\n
             as the police have no clear clue about their identity, they<\/p>\n
             being persons unknown to the victims. They, therefore, have
\n             only to avoid their arrest for the prescribed period to avoid<\/p>\n
             conviction. Similarly, there may be offences which by their
\n             very nature may be witnessed by a single witness, such as
\n             rape. The offender may be unknown to the victim and the
\n             case depends solely on the identification by the victim, who is<\/p>\n
             otherwise found to be truthful and reliable.                 What
\n             justification can be pleaded to contend that such cases must
\n             necessarily result in acquittal because of there being only one
\n             identifying witness ? Prudence therefore demands that these<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                    15   Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
             matters must be left to the wisdom of the courts of fact which
\n             must consider all aspects of the matter in the light of the<\/p>\n
             evidence    on   record    before    pronouncing       upon       the
\n             acceptability or rejection of such identification.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present<\/p>\n
    case and the period taken for purpose of arrangement to hold T.I.
\n    parade, in my considered opinion, there was no unjustifiable delay in
\n    the present case.\n<\/p>\n
    14.         Besides the identification of the accused persons, the prosecution also<\/p>\n
    relied upon certain recoveries and discoveries made on the basis of information<\/p>\n
    given by the accused persons. As per the evidence of PW-4 Avinash Supekar, a<\/p>\n
    panch witness, on 1.1.2001, he was called to Sahakarnagar Police Station. The<\/p>\n
    accused No.1, who was in the police custody, made a statement that he would<\/p>\n
    show the place where the treasury was broken open.             That information was<\/p>\n
    reduced to writing as a memorandum Ex.64 by the police and it was signed by the<\/p>\n
    panch witnesses. Thereafter, accused No.1 led the police and panchas to Village<\/p>\n
    Mulshi. He also showed the place where the treasury was kept hidden. Though it<\/p>\n
    was in the forest area, the treasury was not easily visible. The accused No.1<\/p>\n
    pointed out the same and produced. The said treasury was covered with a black<\/p>\n
    cloth. It was seized under a panchnama ex.64. The said Chest or treasury was<\/p>\n
    identified by PW-1 and PW-2 as the same which was stolen from the petrol pump.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                     16   Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    15.          The evidence of PW-9 Shankar Dhade reveals that on 3.1.2001, he<\/p>\n
    was called at Sahakarnagar Police Station. Accused No.1 Gorakh Mare was<\/p>\n
    present at the Police Station. He stated before the police and panchas that he had<\/p>\n
    concealed the clothes and a revolver and he would show the same. Accordingly, a<\/p>\n
    memorandum Ex.86 was prepared which was duly signed by the panchas. After<\/p>\n
    that, the accused led the police and the panchas to Ramnagar. The accused took<\/p>\n
    the police and panchas to his house and produced a cloth bag containing a shirt, a<\/p>\n
    pant and a pistol. The said bag consisting of these articles was lying under a cot<\/p>\n
    in the house. The said clothes and the pistol were seized under a panchnama Ex.\n<\/p>\n
    87. The pistol is Article 8. It is material to note here that this pistol was referred<\/p>\n
    by the Investigating Officer API Navnath Bere (PW-19) to Ballistic Expert along<\/p>\n
    with his covering letter dated 7.3.2001. The report Ex.153 from the Forensic<\/p>\n
    Science Laboratory (Ballastic)revealed that the said pistol was .22″ air pistol and<\/p>\n
    was in a working condition. It was successfully test fired in the laboratory. This<\/p>\n
    goes to show that the accused No.1 was found in possession of a pistol, which was<\/p>\n
    in working condition.\n<\/p>\n
    16.          PW-13 – Chandrakant deposed that on 8.1.2001, he was called as a<\/p>\n
    panch witness at Sahakarnagar Police Station.         There accused No.1 made a<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                    17   Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    statement that he had concealed amount of Rs.9,000\/- in a cloth bag near his house<\/p>\n
    at Warje Ramnagar and he would show that place. About that information, a<\/p>\n
    memorandum Ex.103 was prepared and signed by the panch witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
    Thereafter, accused No.1 led the police and panchas to Ramnagar. Police jeep was<\/p>\n
    stopped near the house of the accused. The accused         produced a blue coloured<\/p>\n
    cloth bag which was kept in stones near his house. That bag contained amount of<\/p>\n
    Rs.9,000\/- consisting of 60 notes of Rs.100\/- each, 50 notes of Rs.50\/- each and 50<\/p>\n
    notes of Rs.10\/- each. The said amount and the cloth bag was seized under a<\/p>\n
    panchnama Ex.104.\n<\/p>\n
    17.         Even though PW-4 Avinash, PW-9 Shankar and PW-13 Chandrakant<\/p>\n
    were cross-examined at length, nothing could come out to show that any of these<\/p>\n
    witnesses had any reason to depose falsely or to implicate the accused No.1<\/p>\n
    falsely in this case.   PW-19 API Navnath Bere also deposed about all these<\/p>\n
    discoveries and seizures.\n<\/p>\n
    18.         The evidence of PW-6 Rajabhau reveals that on 7.1.2001, he was<\/p>\n
    called at Sahakarnagar Police Station, where accused No.2 Lahu was in police<\/p>\n
    custody. Accused No.2 Lahu made a statement before the police that he would<\/p>\n
    show the place where cash was concealed. That information was recorded as a<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                    18   Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    memorandum Ex.71 which was duly signed by the panchas. After that, the<\/p>\n
    accused No.2 led the police and panchas to Village Mohari in Mulshi Taluka. He<\/p>\n
    took the police party to the rear side of his house. There was a Pimpal tree at the<\/p>\n
    distance of 2 ft. from the back side of his house. Accused No.2 removed some<\/p>\n
    earth and took out a cloth bag. The bag contained amount of Rs.16,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
    consisting of 110 currency notes of Rs.100\/- each, 600 currency notes of Rs.50\/-\n<\/p>\n
    each and 200 currency notes of Rs.10\/- each. The bag and the amount were seized<\/p>\n
    under a panchmnama Ex.72 which was signed by the witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
    19.         PW-8 Girish and PW-11 Sunil were examined by the prosecution<\/p>\n
    about discovery of Rs.20,000\/- on the basis of information given by the accused<\/p>\n
    No.4. PW-11 Sunil deposed that on 23.1.2001, he was called at the Sahakarnagar<\/p>\n
    Police Station. PW-8 Girish was another panch witness. According to PW-11<\/p>\n
    Sunil, at the Police Station, accused No.4 Anil made a statement that he had<\/p>\n
    concealed money near the bungalow situated at Kelkar Road and he would show<\/p>\n
    that place. That information was recorded in a memorandum Ex.92. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
    he led the police and panchas to the relevant spot which was within the compound<\/p>\n
    of Patwardhan Bungalow on Kelkar Road. He produced a cloth bag wrapped in a<\/p>\n
    plastic cover from under the heap of stones. The bag contained 120 Notes of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    100\/- each, 100 notes of Rs.50\/- each and 300 notes of Rs.10.\/- each. This<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                    19   Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    amount of Rs.20,000\/- was recovered from the cloth bag produced by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
    The cloth bag and the amount of Rs.20,000\/-          came to be seized under a<\/p>\n
    panchnama Ex.83. PW-8 Girish also supported the evidence of prosecution about<\/p>\n
    production of the bag containing the amount from the compound of the Bungalow.\n<\/p>\n
    However, it appears that in his evidence, he did not speak anything about the<\/p>\n
    information given by the accused as according to him, he did not remember what<\/p>\n
    exactly he had stated, but he deposed that the accused No.1 had told the police that<\/p>\n
    he would show the place where cash was concealed. Taking into consideration,<\/p>\n
    the evidence of both these witnesses, I find that there is no material inconsistency<\/p>\n
    or contradiction in the evidence of these two witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
    20.          Evidence of PW-12 – Bajirao shows that on 24.1.2001, he had been to<\/p>\n
    the market at Sahakarnagar and from there he was taken to the Sahakarnagar<\/p>\n
    Police Station. Accused No.4 – Babasaheb Kandhare was present at the Police<\/p>\n
    Station. According to him, police asked him whether he knew the accused<\/p>\n
    Babasaheb.    According to the witness, nothing more happened at the police<\/p>\n
    station. He deposed that thereafter accused No.4 – Babasaheb , police and panches<\/p>\n
    went to Pirangut where there was a shop of one Vasant Pole. It appears that<\/p>\n
    PW-12 Bajirao was also knowing Vasant Pole. This witness and accused No.4<\/p>\n
    pointed out Vasant Pole to police. He deposed that on enquiry by police, Vasant<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                    20   Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    Pole told that he had received amount of Rs.15,000\/- from the accused no.4<\/p>\n
    Kandhare in connection with some illegal transaction. Vasant Pole produced that<\/p>\n
    amount. As P.W.12 Bajirao did not depose in the examination-in-chief about the<\/p>\n
    information which was given by the accused No.4 at the police station, he was<\/p>\n
    declared hostile. However, in the cross-examination by APP, he admitted that at<\/p>\n
    the police station the accused no.4 Kandhare had stated before the police that he<\/p>\n
    had paid amount of Rs.15,000\/- to Vasant Pole and that information was reduced<\/p>\n
    to writing vide Exhibit 100 and later on, the accused led police and panchas to the<\/p>\n
    shop of Vasant Pole where the amount was recovered and seized from Vasant Pole<\/p>\n
    as per the panchanama Ex.101. PW-19 API Nivnath Bere also deposed these facts.\n<\/p>\n
    It may be noted that accused No.4 is known as Anil @ Baba @ Narayan Jayawant<\/p>\n
    Kandhare. Kandare is his surname. It appears that he was known by his friends<\/p>\n
    as Baba or Babasaheb and he was also known as Anil @ Narayan. Therefore,<\/p>\n
    while PW-12 referred accused No.4 as Babasaheb Kandare or as Kandare, PW-11<\/p>\n
    Sunil stated that he was knowing accused No.4 as Anil Kandare. PW-8 Girish<\/p>\n
    also identified accused No.4 as Anil. Therefore, merely because accused No.4 is<\/p>\n
    identified by different names like Anil or Babasaheb, there is no reason to have<\/p>\n
    any doubt about him.\n<\/p>\n
    21.         PW-19 API Nivnath Bere, who investigated the case, deposed in<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                     21   Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    detail about all these discoveries and seizures. His evidence also shows that from<\/p>\n
    accused No.2, a plastic pistol was recovered. His evidence also shows that the<\/p>\n
    tommy or iron rod which was allegedly used by accused No.4 was found at the<\/p>\n
    spot and it was seized by the police under a spot panchanama. Thus, with the<\/p>\n
    evidence of all these witnesses and the investigating officer, it has been proved<\/p>\n
    that on the basis of information given by accused No.1, the treasury or Chest and<\/p>\n
    amount of Rs.9,000\/- and a pistol (Article 8) were recovered. The amount of Rs.\n<\/p>\n
    16,000\/- was recovered on the basis of information given by the accused No.2<\/p>\n
    besides a plastic pistol. Total amount of Rs.35,000\/- was recovered on the basis of<\/p>\n
    information given by the accused No.4.\n<\/p>\n
    22.          Evidence of PW-16 – Dr. Prakashchand Raidasani shows that on<\/p>\n
    17.12.2000, he was on duty as Casualty Medical Officer in Sasoon Hospital, Pune.\n<\/p>\n
    On that day, at about 7.40 a.m., three injured persons, viz. Suraj Babulal Agarwal,<\/p>\n
    Vinod Abasaheb Dhumal and Ramesh Bhikaji Udamale were referred to him by<\/p>\n
    police for medical examination. On examination of Suraj Agarwal, he found<\/p>\n
    contusion on the right leg at junction of lower and middle third anteriorly size<\/p>\n
    1-1\/2 inch with abrasion size 1\/4 x 1\/4 inch. The injury could be caused by a hard,<\/p>\n
    and blunt object and age of the injury was within six hours. He accordingly<\/p>\n
    issued a certificate Exhibit 115.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   22   Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    23.          Dr.Prakashchand examined Vinod Abasaheb Dhumal and found two<\/p>\n
    contusions – one on the right leg size 1\/2 x 1 inch and another on left knee size<\/p>\n
    1×1-1\/2 inch. Both injuries could be caused by hard, blunt and rough substance<\/p>\n
    and age of the injury was about six hours. Accordingly, he issued medical<\/p>\n
    certificate Ex.116.\n<\/p>\n
    24.          Dr. Prakashchand examined Ramesh Bhikaji Udamale (PW-2) and<\/p>\n
    found one contusion on the right upper arm size 2 inch x 1-1\/2 inch and one<\/p>\n
    abrasion size 1\/8th x 1\/8th inch. Both injuries could be caused by hard, blunt and<\/p>\n
    rough substance, The age of the injury was within six hours. Accordingly, he<\/p>\n
    issued a certificate Ex.117. Evidence of Medical Officer has gone unchallenged.\n<\/p>\n
    It has come in evidence that Suraj Agarwal and Vinod Dhumal were the workers<\/p>\n
    at the petrol pump when this incident occurred and they suffered injuries at the<\/p>\n
    hands of the culprits, but these two witnesses were not examined before the Court.\n<\/p>\n
    The medical evidence shows PW-2 Ramesh suffered one contusion and one<\/p>\n
    abrasion on the upper arm. These were the only injuries suffered by these<\/p>\n
    persons. There is no medical evidence to show that PW1 Dattatraya had suffered<\/p>\n
    any injury. It may be noted that PW-2 Ramesh deposed that one Santosh had<\/p>\n
    suffered bleeding injury on the left ear due to assault by the culprits. However,<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                     23   Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    neither Santosh was examined before the Court nor any medical certificate is<\/p>\n
    produced in respect of the injuries suffered by him.          No medical officer is<\/p>\n
    examined to prove that Santosh had suffered any injury. Therefore, it must be<\/p>\n
    held that the prosecution has failed to prove that Santosh had suffered any injury<\/p>\n
    and particularly on the left ear.\n<\/p>\n
    25.          Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were convicted for the offence punishable<\/p>\n
    under Section 394 read with Sec. 397 and Sec.34 IPC. Section 394 IPC provides<\/p>\n
    that if any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily<\/p>\n
    causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or<\/p>\n
    attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life<\/p>\n
    or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and also<\/p>\n
    fine. In the present case, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 had jointly committed the<\/p>\n
    offence of robbery and it appears that the accused No.4 caused injuries to three<\/p>\n
    persons, who were working at the petrol pump while committing robbery.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore, by virtue of Section 394 and section 34 IPC, all the three accused<\/p>\n
    persons are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394<\/p>\n
    read with Section 34 IPC. Under Section 394 IPC, the sentence of imprisonment<\/p>\n
    for life or the rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years<\/p>\n
    could be awarded. If life imprisonment is not awarded, the Court has discretion in<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                    24    Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    fixing the quantum of punishment within the limit of 10 years imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
    26.         Section 397 provides that if, at the time of committing robbery or<\/p>\n
    dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any<\/p>\n
    person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the<\/p>\n
    imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall be not less than 7<\/p>\n
    years. It is settled position of law that Section 397 is applicable to the individual<\/p>\n
    accused who uses the deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt or attempts to cause<\/p>\n
    death or grievous hurt at the time of committing robbery or dacoity. All the<\/p>\n
    accused persons, who may be involved in commission of the offence of robbery,<\/p>\n
    cannot be held liable for minimum sentence of imprisonment of 7 years by<\/p>\n
    invoking Sec. 397 either by holding all of them jointly responsible or by applying<\/p>\n
    the principles of common intention under Sec. 34 IPC. Section 397 will be<\/p>\n
    applicable only to the concerned individual accused who uses deadly weapon or<\/p>\n
    causes such grievous hurt or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt. Therefore,<\/p>\n
    before awarding the sentence by invoking Sec. 397 IPC, the Court will have to<\/p>\n
    find out which of the accused persons would be covered by the provisions of<\/p>\n
    Section 397 and only such accused persons will be liable to the minimum<\/p>\n
    punishment of 7 years imprisonment with help of Sec. 397. Though the accused<\/p>\n
    persons, who are not individually covered by the ingredients of section 397,<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                    25    Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    cannot be held liable for minimum sentence of imprisonment of 7 years under<\/p>\n
    Section 397,   under the provisions of Sections 392, 393, 394 and 395 IPC, the<\/p>\n
    term of imprisonment may be fixed by the Court depending on the facts and<\/p>\n
    merits of the case and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of even 7 years or more<\/p>\n
    can be awarded. But then       if Section 397 is    not applicable, the Court has<\/p>\n
    discretion in fixing the quantum of sentence while that discretion is limited by the<\/p>\n
    provisions of Section 397 and the sentence which may be awarded shall not be<\/p>\n
    less than 7 years imprisonment. In the light of this legal position, it will be<\/p>\n
    necessary to scrutinise the evidence against the present appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    27.                PW-1 Dattatraya had not identified accused No.1 or 2 during<\/p>\n
    test identification parade, but he tried to identify them before the Court. However<\/p>\n
    for the reasons given earlier, their identification by him before the Court cannot be<\/p>\n
    given much importance. PW-2 Ramesh has deposed that accused Nos. 1 and 2<\/p>\n
    were both armed with pistols, while it is the consistent evidence of both witnesses<\/p>\n
    that accused No.4 was armed with a tommy or iron rod. The evidence of PW-7 –\n<\/p>\n
    Chandrakant Gore and PW-19 Investigating Officer Nivnath Bere shows that<\/p>\n
    only a plastic pistol or a toy pistol was recovered from the accused No.2. It is<\/p>\n
    settled position that even though the person has used such a toy pistol for<\/p>\n
    threatening the victim while committing robbery, still such toy pistol cannot be<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                    26    Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    treated as a deadly weapon and therefore, Sec. 397 IPC cannot be invoked. From<\/p>\n
    accused No.1, pistol (Article 8) was recovered and C.A. report also has proved<\/p>\n
    that it was a fire arm in working condition. Therefore, it can be held that accused<\/p>\n
    No.1 was armed with a deadly weapon. As he pointed the pistol towards PW-1<\/p>\n
    Dattatraya and other workers,       it means   he had used that weapon                 while<\/p>\n
    committing robbery. Therefore, he would be liable to be punished by invoking<\/p>\n
    Section 397 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    28.<\/p>\n
                As far as accused No.4 – Anil @ Baba is concerned, it is proved that<\/p>\n
    he was armed with a tommy or an iron rod, but from the evidence it appears that<\/p>\n
    he used the same just like a stick to cause minor injuries like contusion or<\/p>\n
    abrasion on the legs or the arms. PW-2 Ramesh deposed that accused No.4 had<\/p>\n
    given a blow with an iron rod on the left ear of Santosh and it caused bleeding<\/p>\n
    injury. As noted earlier, this part of his evidence is not supported by any other<\/p>\n
    evidence. Neither Santosh was examined nor any medical evidence is placed on<\/p>\n
    record to show that he had suffered any injury. Other three persons, including<\/p>\n
    Ramesh suffered minor injuries on the legs or upper arms. It means the accused<\/p>\n
    No.4 took care not to cause any grievous hurt. The manner in which he used that<\/p>\n
    rod indicates that he did not want to cause death or grievous hurt to any person.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                    27    Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    29.          In Dhanai Mahto and Anr. vs. State of Bihar<\/a> 2003 SCC (Cri)<\/p>\n
    1040, it was held that merely the description of “bamboo sticks” or “lathis” is not<\/p>\n
    enough to make the weapon lethal or deadly. In that case, the accused had not<\/p>\n
    inflicted any grievous hurt nor he had attempted to inflict grievous hurt with the<\/p>\n
    lathi. Therefore, it was held that limitation prescribed under Section 397 IPC<\/p>\n
    cannot be applied. While for causing hurt punishment is provided in Section 323,<\/p>\n
    severe punishment is provided under section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt<\/p>\n
    by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting or any instrument<\/p>\n
    which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death. If any instrument,<\/p>\n
    when used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death, is used to cause hurt,<\/p>\n
    Section 324 IPC would be applicable. It is settled position of law that lathi may<\/p>\n
    be treated as a weapon, which is likely to cause death, if such lathi is used in such<\/p>\n
    a manner that it is likely to cause death. For example, if stick blow is given on<\/p>\n
    the head, it is likely to cause death and in that case, the lathi may be treated as a<\/p>\n
    lethal or deadly weapon, but if the same lathi is used for giving a blow on a leg or<\/p>\n
    arm and a simple hurt is caused, the lathi will not be treated as a deadly weapon<\/p>\n
    and the case would fall under Section 323 IPC and not under Section 324 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    Similar difference is found in cases under sections 325 and 326. In the present<\/p>\n
    case, even though accused No.4 was armed with the iron rod, still he used it as a<\/p>\n
    lathi or a stick to cause simple hurt on legs or arms. He particularly avoided the<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                    28   Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    vital parts of the body like head while using the iron rod. Therefore, it cannot be<\/p>\n
    said that he had used the deadly weapon while committing offence of robbery.\n<\/p>\n
    There is nothing to show that he had caused or attempted to cause any grievous<\/p>\n
    hurt to anybody. Therefore, Sec. 397 IPC cannot be invoked while awarding<\/p>\n
    sentence of imprisonment to him.\n<\/p>\n
    30.         In view of the facts stated above,while accused No.1 – Gorakh Mare<\/p>\n
    is liable to be convicted under Section 394 read with Section 397, accused No.2<\/p>\n
    Lahu Gaudse and accused No.4 – Anil @ Baba are liable to be convicted and<\/p>\n
    sentenced under Section 394 read with Section 34 IPC only.\n<\/p>\n
    31.         In view of the facts and circumstances noted above, the Appeals are<\/p>\n
    partly allowed and the impugned        order of conviction and sentence stands<\/p>\n
    modified as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
                Accused No.1 Gorakh is convicted for the offence punishable under<\/p>\n
    Section 394 read with Section 397 and Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo<\/p>\n
    rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000\/- and in default<\/p>\n
    to pay fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. The accused<\/p>\n
    no.2 Lahu and accused No.4 Anil are convicted for the offence punishable under<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n                                   29   Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
    Section 394 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years<\/p>\n
    and to pay fine of Rs.5,000\/- each and in default to pay fine, to undergo further<\/p>\n
    simple imprisonment for six months.\n<\/p>\n
                Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are reported to be in jail. This order be<\/p>\n
    communicated to the Superintendent, Yerawada Central Prison, for information<\/p>\n
    and execution of sentence. Accused No.4 was in jail from 17.1.2001 till he was<\/p>\n
    released on bail on 24.9.2004. He shall surrender to undergo balance period of<\/p>\n
    sentence. The trial Court shall issue warrant for arrest of accused No.4 for<\/p>\n
    execution of the sentence.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         (J.H.BHATIA,J.)<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>
\n            30   Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw<\/p>\n
                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:09:26 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Gorakh Pandurang Mare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 July, 2010 Bench: J. H. Bhatia 1 Cri-A-558-512-04.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2004 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 512 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2004 1. Gorakh Pandurang […]<\/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-64848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGorakh Pandurang Mare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 July, 2010 - 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\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gorakh Pandurang Mare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-01T20:05:47+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=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gorakh Pandurang Mare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-01T20:05:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":6808,\"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\\\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Gorakh Pandurang Mare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-01T20:05:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gorakh Pandurang Mare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Gorakh Pandurang Mare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 July, 2010 - 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\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gorakh Pandurang Mare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-01T20:05:47+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":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gorakh Pandurang Mare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-01T20:05:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010"},"wordCount":6808,"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\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010","name":"Gorakh Pandurang Mare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-01T20:05:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gorakh-pandurang-mare-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gorakh Pandurang Mare vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 July, 2010"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/64848","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=64848"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64848\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64848"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64848"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64848"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}