Allowed

Ramasharay @ Kalya Kamlaprasad Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC7 Sept 2009APEAL/1504/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 1504 of 2003, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed the appeal of Accused No. 3. The Court set aside the conviction for murder and robbery but convicted the appellant under Section 411 of IPC, sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Sections 394, 302 and 452 IPC set aside; convicted under Section 411 IPC; sentenced to three years R.I.; released forthwith as sentence period served completed.

Ramasharay @ Kalya Kamlaprasad Yadav Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

Ladda

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1504 OF 2003.

¶6

Ramasharay @ Kalya
KamlaprasadYadav,
age adult, occupation
service, resident of
NarayanPujari
Chawl,PlotNo.345,
Road No.18, Javahar
Nagar,Goregaon
(West), Mumbai 400
102.

¶7

..Appellant/Orig.Accu sed No.3.

¶8

Versus.

¶9

TheStateof
Maharashtra
(At the instance of
Nirmal Nagar, Police
Station, Mumbai.

¶10

Respondent.

¶11

Mr Y. M. Chaudhary, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶12

Dr F.R. Shaikh, A.P.P.for the State-respondent.

¶13

¶14

CORAM: BILAL NAZKI, AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ

¶15

DELIVERED ON: 7TH SEPTEMBER,2009

¶16

JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki,J:

¶17

1.We have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant as well as the learned A.P.P.,for the
State.

¶18

2.There are two appeals listed before us. The
Appeal No. 1504/2003 is filed by original Accused
No.3 and Appeal No.8 of 2004 filed by original
Accused No.1. We are told that while serving
sentence Accused No.1 was released on parole and he
is absconding. Today, nobody appears for the
Accused No.1 (A-1). Therefore, at this stage, we
are not inclined to hear the Appeal No. 8 of 2004
filed by A-1 (Bharatkumar Bhavarlal Pandiya).

¶19

who is in jail from March,1996. He is convicted

¶20

under Section 302 read with section 34 of the

¶21

Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer
life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- I.D.

¶22

¶23

imprisonment for three months. He is also convicted
under Sections 394, 452 r.w.s.34 of the IPC and

¶24

sentenced to suffer various terms of imprisonment
and fine of Rs.4000/-.

¶25

4.The allegations against the accused were

¶26

that in all four accused committed robbery and

¶27

murder of Dharamchand Jain (hereinafter referred as

¶28

the deceased), who was owner of a jewelery shop.

¶29

After committing the murder they also looted the
jewelery shop. Out of four, three accused persons,
A-1 to A-3 were convicted by the trial Court. One
of them was acquitted. Three convicted accused
filed three different appeals. A-2 filed Appeal
No. 579 of 2005 which was disposed of by the order

¶30

of this Court on 2.12.2005. The Court set aside

¶31

the order of conviction of that accused under

¶32

Section 394, 302 and 452 r/w 34 of the IPC.

¶33

However, the Court convicted the said accused for

¶34

the offence under Section 411 of the IPC and

¶35

sentenced him to suffer R.I.for two years.

¶36

5.The learned A.P.P.,for the appellant, in

¶37

the present appeal submits that his case was better

¶38

¶39

case than the accused no.2 as there was no evidence

¶40

against accused no.2 even to connect him with
recovery. The case of the prosecution was that A-1
was a servant of the deceased. The deceased having

¶41

a shop of jewelery was sleeping in the jewelery
shop in order to protect it along with his servant

¶42

i.e.A-1. On the fateful day his family received a

¶43

phone call from his native place during the night

¶44

that some relative had died in Rajasthan. Son of

¶45

the deceased therefore tried to contact the

¶46

deceased on phone but phone was not lifted.

¶47

Therefore, son of the deceased came to the shop. He

¶48

found the shutter of the shop was open and he also

¶49

found that his father was dead and everything was

¶50

looted from the shop. Thereafter, the matter was

¶51

reported to the police. The police also found a

¶52

note in the shop informing the relatives of the

¶53

deceased that they should not inform the police and

¶54

if they inform the police they would meet the same

¶55

fate as the deceased. During the investigation the

¶56

prosecution found that the note was in the
handwriting of A-1. There was also some evidence

¶57

¶58

to show that the deceased was last seen immediately

¶59

before his death in the company of A-1. We are not
purposely dealing with the evidence relating to the

¶60

murder or robbery in detail because that may

¶61

prejudice the case of the prosecution or the case

¶62

as far as A-1 is concerned. We do not decide his

¶63

appeal in his absence or in the absence of his

¶64

counsel. We have gone through the evidence. It is

¶65

even conceded by the learned A.P.P.,and has also

¶66

been recorded in the judgment relating to A-2

¶67

passed by this Court that there is no evidence on

¶68

record connecting A-3 to murder or robbery. The
only evidence produced by the prosecution is that

¶69

of disclosure having been made by A-3 at a later

¶70

point of time. Since there is nothing to show that

¶71

A-3 was in any way connected either with robbery

¶72

or with murder but at best it could be said that

¶73

certain articles were recovered at the disclosure

¶74

having been made by him. Therefore, following the

¶75

judgment which has been given in the case of A-2 we

¶76

feel that the prosecution had not been able to

¶77

bring home the guilt of A-3 under Sections

¶78

¶79

302,394,452 r.w.s.34 of the IPC. However, from the

¶80

evidence of the prosecution, we feel that charge
under Section 411 of IPC is proved which carries
maximum sentence of three years. Therefore, A-3 is
convicted, sentencing him to suffer imprisonment
for three years and also fine of Rs.5000/-or six
months in default of payment fine. We are told that
the appellant has served sentence of more than ten
years as on date. The appellant A-3 has already
undergone imprisonment for more than three years
including the default in payment.Therefore, he

¶81

should be released forthwith. Hence, we pass the
following order:-

¶82

ORDER

¶83

Ramasharay @ Kalya Kamlaprasad Yadav under Sections
394, 302,452 r.w.s.34 of the IPC is set aside.
3.However,the appellant/Accused no.3 is

¶84

convicted for the offence under Section 411 of the

¶85

IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I.for three years.

¶86

The appellant A-3 has already undergone

¶87

¶88

imprisonment for more than three years including

¶89

the sentence of default in payment. Therefore, he
will be set at liberty forthwith if he is not
required in any other case. Appeal is disposed of.

¶90

Sd/-

¶91

 (BILAL NAZKI,J)

¶92

Sd/-

¶93

 (A.R.JOSHI,J)

¶94

Ramasharay @ Kalya Kamlaprasad Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramasharay @ Kalya Kamlaprasad Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shobha Ugamraj Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Sattar Abdul Aziz Khan Vs the State of Mah

Niranjan Vasantlal Joshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishwas @ Vishu Vijay Haldankar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tulshiram Raghu Naik and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amit Visesh Sharma Vs State of Maharashtra