Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from two criminal appeals before the Bombay High Court against convictions recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.573 of 2010. The case originated from a robbery at the house of First Informant Vandana Ugale in Shirur Taluka on the night of 17-18 March 2010, during which cash, gold ornaments and a mobile phone were looted and the informant and her husband were assaulted. The First Information Report was lodged at Shirur Police Station under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation led to the arrest of accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale and accused no.3 Anand Raimokar, with gold ornaments recovered from accused no.3 based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Tanhya Kale. The trial court convicted accused no.1 under Section 394 IPC and accused no.3 under Section 411 IPC, sentencing them to six years and three years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The appellants challenged their convictions, arguing that identification was unreliable due to the robbers covering their faces, and that the recovery and identification of ornaments were inadequate. The State supported the convictions, relying on Test Identification Parade evidence and the principle that dock identification is substantive evidence. The High Court began its analysis by examining whether the robbery occurred, considering the testimony of the victims and medical evidence, but the judgment excerpt ends before a final decision is reached.
Issue of Consideration
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.386 OF 2012
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (08) 87
Criminal Appeal No.386 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No.975 of 2015
Mr.Prasanna K. Shahane h/f. Mr.Milind Deshmukh, Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal, Mr.Vinod Chate
Anand Anil Raimokar and Ramesh Narsing Bhosale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction for offences of robbery and receiving stolen property under Indian Penal Code.
Remedy Sought
Appellants seek acquittal and setting aside of convictions and sentences imposed by trial court.
Filing Reason
Conviction by trial court for offences under Sections 411 and 394 IPC respectively.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellant no.3 Anand Raimokar under Section 411 IPC on 24 January 2012 (Criminal Appeal No.386/2012) and appellant no.1 Ramesh Bhosale under Section 394 IPC on 20 August 2015 (Criminal Appeal No.975/2015).
Issues
Whether the identification of appellant no.1 in Test Identification Parade was reliable given that robbers had covered faces and description differences?
Whether the recovery and identification of gold ornaments from appellant no.3 was sufficient to prove offence under Section 411 IPC?
Whether the dock identification of seized ornaments without production of similar ornaments was admissible?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant no.1 argued that robbers covered faces with scarf, making identification impossible; TIP of accused no.1 and no.2 together was improper due to different descriptions; nothing was recovered from him; only confessional statement of co-accused led to his arrest.
Appellant no.3 argued that similar ornaments were not produced for comparison during dock identification; grouping of seized articles into categories A, B, C was not explained; such ornaments are commonly available in market; recovery panchnama was common and he was falsely implicated.
Prosecution argued that memorandum of co-accused showed involvement of appellant no.1; TIP identification by PW1 and PW2 was valid; dock identification is substantive evidence and TIP is corroborative, relying on S.H.O. vs. Subramani and State of Maharashtra vs. Sukhdev Singh; conviction was rightly recorded.
Judgment Excerpts
The first informant / PW1 Vandana Ugale woke up at about 2 a.m. in the night intervening 17 th March 2010 and 18 th March 2010 to see one person standing near the cupboard, whereas another waiting at the door of the house.
While on their way out, as PW2 Daulat Ugale followed them, robbers assaulted him by means of iron rod. When PW1 Vandana Ugale attempted to save her husband, she was also assaulted.
He further argued that in the TIP conducted by PW6 Rushikesh Shelke, the appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale is identified by PW1 Vandana Ugale and her husband PW2 Daulat Ugale. The learned APP placed reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the matter of S.H.O. vs. Subramani @ Jeeva @ Kullajeeva as well as judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs. Sukhdev Singh to submit that dock identification is a substantive evidence and evidence of TIP is a corroborative evidence, which is admissible in law.
Procedural History
FIR No.92/2010 lodged at Shirur Police Station on 18 March 2010 at 3.45 a.m. for offence under Section 394 IPC. Investigation led to arrest of accused no.1 on 1 May 2010 and accused no.3 later after recovery of gold ornaments. Chargesheet filed. Sessions Case No.573/2010. Charges framed under Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC, later amended. Trial conducted; accused no.1 absconded mid-trial, trial separated. On 24 January 2012, accused no.3 convicted under Section 411 IPC, sentenced to 3 years RI. Accused no.1 later apprehended, tried, and on 20 August 2015 convicted under Section 394 IPC, sentenced to 6 years RI. Both filed appeals which are being decided together.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 411, 394, 395, 397, 412
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
