/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1061 OF 2005 Raju Rangayya Gauda @ Nagesh Munirao Rao & Anr. ..Appellants Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ---- Shri S.M. Deshpande for Appellants Shri S.S. Pednekar APP for State. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 17TH OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and the learned APP for State. The Appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 392, 394, 397, 419, 452 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment, further imprisonment for six months. He has also been convicted for the offence punishable under section 25 (1-B) (b) r/w. Section 4 of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment, further imprisonment for one month. The Appellants, however, acquitted for rest of the offences. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the Complainant attended his / 2 / office on 8.1.2005. Three persons had entered in his office and they took out chopper and Accused No.1 pointed it at the neck of the Complainant. Two customers had came to the office of the Complainant. They were also threatened. The Accused took the gold ring and gold chain belonging to the First Informant and robbed sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which was kept in the drawer of the table and tied the hands of the first informant and Vikram, was also robbed of the sum of Rs.20,000/-. After the Accused left the premises, Bhoparam and Vikram who could get rid of the string with which they were tied had got down the stairs and shouted and with the assistance of few members of public as also couple of policemen in uniform and one plain clothesman, had succeeded to chase and catch hold of the Accused. A Complaint was lodged. Panchnama was made. Taking into consideration, the past criminal record of the Accused, an application was made for applying the provisions of the MCOC Act. Sanction was granted and accordingly, charge was framed. The Trial Court has acquitted the Accused for the offences under the provisions of the MCOC Act. However, on the basis of the evidence of PW-1 Mahendra Kumar Mehta and First Informant and other prosecution witnesses, the Trial Court has convicted the Accused for the aforesaid offences. 3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that there are / 3 / number of descripancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding a manner in which the said incident had taken place. He submitted that three different versions were given by three persons, who had allegedly apprehended the Accused. He submitted that there was also a descripancy in the evidence of the First Informant regarding a manner in which the Accused were arrested by the police and by the public at large. He submitted that, therefore, in view of these descripancies, the benefit of doubt be given to the Accused. He submitted that there is further descripancy in recovery of the chopper from their person. He invited my attention to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the Investigating Officer. Vehemently the Trial Court was urged in accepting the prosecution case. 4. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. The evidence of the Complainant and other prosecution witnesses clearly disclose that the Appellants were caught red handed while they had just completing the act of robbery. The weapons also recovered on their person, when they were arrested. There may be some minor descripancies in the statements regarding the manner in which the accused were arrested. However, minor contradictions will not be affect veracity of their statements recording the apprehension of the accused. In the result, the finding recorded by the Trial Court is confirmed. / 4 / 5. However, so far as the sentences are concerned, the Appellants are in jail since last about three years. It is submitted that the Trial Court had acquitted the Accused of the serious offences with which they were charged. The Complainant and other person who were present there at the time of offence were not injured or assaulted by the Accused. Taking into consideration, these facts, in my view the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is liable to be reduced from seven years to 4 ½ years. 6. The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. The Accused be released on completion of the aforesaid sentence unless they are otherwise wanted in other cases. V.M. KANADE J.