Case Note & Summary
The case involves two criminal appeals arising from a common judgment of conviction dated 24.3.2004 passed by the 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.572/2002. The appellants, Shambabu s/o Siddhagopal Suryawanshi (accused No.1) and Rajjan @ Baggad s/o Mishrilal Kuril (accused No.2), were convicted for the offence of robbery under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs.1000, with default imprisonment of 6 months. The prosecution case, as per the facts stated in the judgment, is that Devprasad Himanshu Sengupta (PW7) went to Walni Outpost of Khaperkheda Police Station and lodged a report. The court considered the evidence of witnesses and the recovery of stolen property. The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence. The High Court, after hearing the arguments, upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of witnesses and the recovery of stolen articles. The appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Robbery - Section 392 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on identification and recovery - The appellants were convicted for robbery under Section 392 IPC. The court examined the evidence of witnesses and recovery of stolen articles. Held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent testimony and recovery. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code for robbery is sustainable based on the evidence of identification and recovery of stolen property.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Section 392 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Robbery
- Section 392 IPC
- Identification of accused
- Recovery of stolen property
- Circumstantial evidence
- Testimony of witnesses
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (02) 116
Criminal Appeal No.204 of 2004 and Criminal Appeal No.413 of 2004
Shri Anil S. Mardikar, Senior Counsel with Shri C.R. Thakur for Appellant in Appeal No.204/2004; Shri R.M. Daga for Appellant in Appeal No.413/2004; Shri M.K. Pathan, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent/State
Shambabu s/o Siddhagopal Suryawanshi and Rajjan @ Baggad s/o Mishrilal Kuril
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction for robbery
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal from conviction under Section 392 IPC
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted by the trial court for robbery and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellants on 24.3.2004 in Sessions Trial No.572/2002
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 392 IPC is sustainable on the basis of evidence of identification and recovery of stolen property
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
State argued that the prosecution proved its case through witness testimony and recovery of stolen articles
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction for robbery under Section 392 IPC can be sustained based on the testimony of witnesses and recovery of stolen property, which together establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
These two appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment since both the appeals arise out of judgment and order of conviction dated 24.3.2004 passed by 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.572/2002.
By the impugned judgment and order of conviction, the appellants in these appeals are convicted for offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of rs.1000/ and in default of payment of the fine amount to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the appellants on 24.3.2004. The appellants filed separate appeals before the High Court, which were heard together and disposed of by common judgment on 7.2.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 392
