Ramesh @ Bhaijan Mohan Patil vs State of Maharashtra

Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2011, has been convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 396, 397 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC').

¶25

It appears from the operative part of the order that the applicant alongwith others have not been awarded a separate sentence for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC and each of the accused is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment, which would not be less than sixteen years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each, separately for both the offences punishable under Sections 396 and 120B of the IPC, in default, to suffer imprisonment for six months. It appears that nine accused were arrested in connection with the case in question i.e. in connection with C.R. No.212 of 2010, registered with the M.H.B. Colony Police Station, Mumbai. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the said accused. After a full-fledged trial, four accused were acquitted of all the offences punishable under Sections 396, 397 and 120B of the IPC and three accused including the applicant were

¶26

2/6

¶27

N. S. Chitnis

¶28

16-IA.925.2024.doc

¶29

convicted, as stated aforesaid.

¶30

Perused the papers. The prosecution case rests essentially on circumstantial evidence. It appears that in the incident that took place i.e. when the idols of Lord Mahavir were stolen and, two security guards were assaulted by the accused. Out of the said two persons, one succumbed to the injuries and the other was injured. As far as the applicant is concerned, it appears that there is recovery of idols, at his instance. It is the applicant's case that the said idols were not shown to the witnesses and hence the fact that the said idols were the same idols, which were stolen, has not been proved by the prosecution. The said argument is disputed by the learned APP. He submits that the photographs of the idols were shown to the witnesses and that they have identified the said photographs. Apart from the aforesaid, it appears that although there is an injured eye-witness who was assaulted by the accused, the said injured eye-witness was not examined by the prosecution. It thus appears that the said eye-witness had identified the applicant in the test identification parade, however,

3/6

N. S. Chitnis

16-IA.925.2024.doc

the said witness has not been examined by the prosecution. It also appears that in order to prove the test identification parade, the Special Metropolitan Magistrate i.e. PW17 was examined by the prosecution. A persual of the evidence of the said witness shows that he has only deposed what transpired in the test identification parade i.e. that the applicant was identified by one person i.e. the injured eye-witness. The said witness has not attributed any role allegedly given by the said eye-witness in his substantive evidence. Apart from the aforesaid, there is no other evidence qua the applicant. The applicant is in custody for more than 14 ½ years without remission.

¶35

Considering the aforesaid evidence and the long incarceration of the applicant, the application is allowed and the applicant’s sentence is suspended and he is enlarged on bail, pending the hearing and final disposal of the aforesaid appeal, on the following terms and conditions:-

4/6

N. S. Chitnis

16-IA.925.2024.doc

O R D E R

i) The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond

¶41

in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two local solvent sureties in the like amount;

¶42

ii) The applicant shall report to the trial Court, once in four months on the day/date specified by the trial Court, till his Appeal is finally disposed of;

¶43

iii) The applicant shall keep the trial Court informed of his current address and mobile contact number and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time;

¶44

iv) If there are two consecutive defaults in appearing before the trial Court, the learned Judge shall make a report to the High Court and the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application seeking cancellation of bail.

5/6

N. S. Chitnis

16-IA.925.2024.doc