Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two criminal appeals arising from a common conviction under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code for robbery. The appellants, Shambabu Suryawanshi (accused No.1) and Rajjan Kuril (accused No.2), were convicted by the 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.572/2002 on 24.3.2004. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs.1000, with default imprisonment of 6 months. The facts involve a robbery incident where the victim, Devprasad Sengupta (PW7), was robbed. The prosecution relied on the testimony of witnesses who identified the appellants and the recovery of stolen property. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the identification was unreliable and the recovery was not properly proved. The court, after hearing arguments from both sides, examined the evidence and found that the identification by witnesses was credible and the recovery of stolen property was established. The court upheld the conviction, finding no reason to interfere with the trial court's judgment. The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Robbery - Section 392 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Identification of Accused - The court considered whether the testimony of witnesses identifying the appellants and the recovery of stolen property were sufficient to sustain the conviction for robbery. The court held that the evidence of identification by witnesses and recovery of stolen property was credible and supported the conviction. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence of identification and recovery of stolen property.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court are confirmed.
Law Points
- Identification of accused by witnesses
- recovery of stolen property
- conviction under Section 392 IPC
- sentencing discretion
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 136
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 under Section 392 IPC.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought acquittal from the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted for robbery and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted the appellants on 24.3.2004 in Sessions Trial No.572/2002.
Issues
Whether the identification of the appellants by witnesses is reliable.
Whether the recovery of stolen property is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the identification was unreliable and recovery was not properly proved.
State argued that the evidence of identification and recovery was credible and supported the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the evidence of identification by witnesses and recovery of stolen property was credible and sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 392 IPC.
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 this common judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 392
