Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Meesam Haider Abdul Hussein (original accused No.1) and Raees Mehboob Rehman (original accused No.2), were convicted by the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay for committing robbery on 28 July 1983 at 10:15 p.m. at the junction of St. Domnic Road and Manual Gonsalves Road, Bandra, using deadly weapons. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and 8 years respectively under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses. Appellant No.2 died in an encounter as per report of the City Sessions Court, Bombay vide OW No.17029/04 dated 23 June 2004, and the appeal abated as against him. The remaining appellant challenged the conviction. The High Court, after considering the evidence, upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Robbery - Section 392 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction upheld - Appellants convicted for committing robbery at a junction using deadly weapons - Trial court's judgment confirmed - Appeal abated for appellant No.2 who died in encounter (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC for robbery with deadly weapons is sustainable on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed for appellant No.1; appeal abated for appellant No.2 due to his death in encounter.
Law Points
- Robbery
- deadly weapons
- common intention
- Section 392 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- abatement of appeal on death of appellant
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (01) 65
Criminal Appeal No.911 of 1987
Mr. K.M. Sangani for the appellants, Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the respondent - State
Meesam Haider Abdul Hussein, Raees Mehboob Rehman
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for robbery
Remedy Sought
Appellants challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted for committing robbery with deadly weapons
Previous Decisions
Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 392, 394, 397 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to R.I. for 7 years and 8 years respectively
Issues
Whether the conviction under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC is sustainable on evidence
Submissions/Arguments
Not mentioned in the provided text
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC for robbery with deadly weapons was upheld based on the evidence of 7 witnesses examined by the prosecution.
Judgment Excerpts
Appellants are challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay.
Prosecution case is that the appellant along with others committed robbery on 28/7/1983 at 10.15 p.m. at the junction of St. Domnic Road and Manual Gonsalves Road, Bandra and used deadly weapons while committing the said act.
Procedural History
Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 392, 394, 397 read with Section 34 IPC. Appellants filed Criminal Appeal No.911 of 1987 before the High Court. Appellant No.2 died in encounter as per report dated 23/6/2004, and the appeal abated as against him. The High Court heard the appeal for appellant No.1 and dismissed it.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 392, 34, 394, 397
