Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Alam Adam Mansuri, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Special MCOCA Case No.4 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 379 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine. He was acquitted of charges under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) and Section 392 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution case was that on 02/09/2012, the first informant Nidhi Kadam was traveling in a car when two persons on a motorcycle snatched her mangalsutra. The appellant and co-accused were arrested on 09/09/2012 in connection with another offence and later shown to witnesses in the police station on 20/09/2012 where they were identified. The mangalsutra was recovered at the instance of co-accused No.1. The appellant's house was searched on 26/02/2013 and a jacket and helmet were seized. The trial court convicted both accused under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC. The appellant challenged the conviction. The High Court held that no test identification parade was conducted and the identification in the police station after the accused were shown to witnesses was unreliable. The recovery of the mangalsutra was from co-accused, not the appellant, and the jacket and helmet were not connected to the offence. The court found the evidence insufficient and set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Snatching - Identification - Section 379 r/w 34 IPC - Identification Parade - The appellant was convicted for snatching a mangalsutra but no test identification parade was conducted and the witnesses identified the accused only in the police station after they were shown to them. Held that such identification is not reliable and the conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 7-10).
B) Criminal Law - Recovery - Section 27 Evidence Act - Recovery of stolen article - The mangalsutra was recovered at the instance of co-accused, not the appellant. No recovery from appellant. Held that the appellant cannot be linked to the offence based on recovery from co-accused (Paras 11-12).
C) Criminal Law - MCOCA - Acquittal - Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) MCOCA - The trial court acquitted the appellant under MCOCA. The appeal only challenges conviction under IPC. Held that the acquittal under MCOCA is not challenged (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 379 read with 34 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said charge. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Identification parade not conducted
- recovery not proved
- no corroboration
- benefit of doubt
- acquittal under MCOCA
- conviction under Section 379 IPC set aside
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (12) 81
Criminal Appeal No.1300 of 2018
Mr. Shashikant D. Chandak (Appointed Advocate) for Appellant, Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the State/Respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for snatching under Section 379 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought acquittal from the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted for snatching a mangalsutra and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellant under Section 379 r/w 34 IPC and acquitted him under MCOCA and Section 392 IPC.
Issues
Whether the identification of the appellant by the witnesses was reliable in the absence of a test identification parade.
Whether the recovery of the mangalsutra from co-accused and the seizure of jacket and helmet from appellant's house link the appellant to the offence.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that no test identification parade was conducted and the identification in the police station was suggestive and unreliable.
Appellant argued that the recovery of mangalsutra was from co-accused and not from appellant, and the jacket and helmet were not connected to the offence.
State argued that the witnesses identified the appellant in the police station and the recovery of articles supports the prosecution case.
Ratio Decidendi
In the absence of a test identification parade, identification of the accused for the first time in the police station after being shown to witnesses is not reliable. Recovery of stolen article from co-accused does not link the appellant to the offence. Hence, the conviction under Section 379 IPC cannot be sustained.
Judgment Excerpts
The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order dated 13/07/2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Special MCOCA Case No.4 of 2013.
They were convicted for the commission of offence punishable u/s 379 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
No test identification parade was conducted.
The identification of the accused for the first time in the police station after they were shown to the witnesses is not reliable.
The recovery of the mangalsutra was at the instance of accused No.1 and not the appellant.
The jacket and helmet seized from the appellant's house are not connected to the offence.
Procedural History
The appellant was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, on 13/07/2018 in Special MCOCA Case No.4 of 2013. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.1300 of 2018 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the conviction. The High Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 19/12/2022.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 379, 34, 392
- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 (MCOCA): 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 428
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 27
