Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the judgment of the Sessions Court, Beed, which convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 393/34, 324, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on 27-11-1992, the complainant Ramprasad Raut was accosted by four robbers near a bridge on the Beed-Solapur road. Hearing his shouts, two police personnel, PW2 Dilip Nanekar and PW6 Sukhdeo Landge, who were nearby investigating another crime, rushed to the spot. The robbers fled, and PW2 chased one of them towards a shed near a dairy. That robber stabbed PW2 in the abdomen and escaped. PW2 claimed to have identified the assailant as the appellant, Khaled. The appellant and another accused were subsequently arrested and tried. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 393/34, 324, and 353 IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment and fines. In appeal, the appellant contended that the conviction was unsustainable as the complainant did not know the accused and no test identification parade was conducted; the identification by police witnesses was unreliable; the incident allegedly took place on a busy road, making robbery improbable; the offence under Section 353 was not made out as knowledge that the victim was a public servant was not proved; the Investigating Officer was not examined; and the prosecution evidence was riddled with contradictions and omissions. The High Court reserved judgment on 28-02-2011 and pronounced it on 07-03-2011, but the provided judgment text does not include the court's analysis, decision, or ratio decidendi.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 393, 324, 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in law given the lack of identification parade, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, and alleged inconsistencies in evidence.
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 26
Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2000
Mrs. A.N. Ansari (for appellant), Mr. V.G. Shelke, A.P.P. (for respondent)
Shaikh Khaled s/o Shaikh Babamiyan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction by Sessions Court
Remedy Sought
Appellant seeks acquittal from all charges
Filing Reason
Appellant claims false implication and lack of proper identification
Previous Decisions
Sessions Court, Beed in Sessions Case No. 99 of 1999 convicted the appellant under Sections 393/34, 324, 353 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment and fine on 30-10-1999
Issues
Whether conviction based on identification by police witnesses without a test identification parade is sustainable when the complainant did not know the accused?
Whether the offence under Section 353 IPC is made out when knowledge that the victim was a public servant is not proved?
Whether non-examination of the Investigating Officer is fatal to the prosecution case?
Whether the evidence of prosecution witnesses is credible given contradictions, omissions, and improvements?
Submissions/Arguments
Incident occurred on busy road, making robbery improbable.
FIR against four unknown, but only two tried; fate of others unexplained.
Complainant did not know accused; no identification parade conducted; identification by police witnesses doubtful as appellant was a history-sheeter.
No injuries on complainant, casting doubt on scuffle.
No recovery of knife or stolen property.
Knowledge that victim was public servant not established for Section 353.
IO not examined, causing prejudice.
Evidence suffers from contradictions, omissions, improvements.
Judgment Excerpts
P.W.2 Dilip Nanekar and P.W. 6 Sukhdeo Landge, Police Head Constable, who were attached to police station, Beed Rural, had gone to field of one Goswami which is by the side of Beed Solapur road...
P.C. P.W. 2 Nanekar and P.H.C. Sukhdeo Landge, P.W. 6 after hearing the shouts raised by Ramprasad Raut in the present case, started proceeding towards bridge where the incident took place on motor cycle and the robbers after seeing that Nanekar and the P.W. 6 coming on motor cycle left the place.
It is the case of the prosecution that 4 persons were involved, however, what happen to other is not on the record.
Procedural History
FIR No. 236/92 registered at Beed Rural Police Station on 27-11-1992 under Sections 393, 326, 353 IPC. Charge sheet filed on 24-04-1993 before JMFC Beed. Case committed to Sessions Court on 31-05-1999 as offence under Section 307/34 IPC exclusively triable by Sessions. Accused produced on 16-07-1999 after production warrant. Charge framed on 30-07-1999. Trial held; prosecution examined six witnesses. Conviction by Sessions Court, Beed on 30-10-1999 in Sessions Case No. 99/1999. Appeal filed as Criminal Appeal No. 88/2000 before High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench. Hearing concluded and judgment reserved on 28-02-2011, pronounced on 07-03-2011.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 393, 326, 353, 307, 324, 34, 379
