IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAl NO. 1217 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPEAl NO. 1217 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPEAl NO. 1217 OF 2004 Ramnath Mahendraprasad Jaiswal.... Appellant versus The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Dr. Yug Chaudhary for appellant Mr. J.P.Yagnik APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 25TH MARCH, 2008 DATED; 25TH MARCH, 2008 DATED; 25TH MARCH, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant who is original accused no.3 has been in custody for a period of five years and three months. My attention is invited to the judgment rendered in Criminal Appeal No.446/04 dated 24th August 2004. By the said judgment the learned Single Judge of this court has decided the appeal filed by one Sohl Ahmed Ajimullakhan, accused no.2, and reduced the sentence to five years. The learned counsel for the present appellant submits that the accused nos.2 and 3 are similarly situated, having regard to the role ascribed to each of them by the prosecution. Thus on the ground of parity it is submitted that the sentence of the present appellant, who has been in custody for a period of six years and three months with remission be reduced. The appellant is in custody since 1-12-2002 till date. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant does not want to contest the case on merit but only a prayer for reduction of the sentence is made. 2. The main thrust of the submission made on behalf of the appellant is that no injury was caused and no weapon was used by the present appellant and thus the submission is that the sentence of ten years R.I. awarded by the trial court is disproportionately harsh. The case of the prosecution is that the informant Hemakant has taken his mother Savita for medical treatment to Kamshet town and after the medical treatment they were waiting at the bus stop. At that time a Tata Sumo car came at the spot. The accused nos.1 to 6 were sitting in the car. The persons sitting in the car offered a lift to the informant and therefore the informant and his mother sat in the Tata Sumo car. It was noticed by the informant that the car was being driven to Panvel instead of Kapoli. The informant and his mother were asked to hand over the ornaments. Hemakant was assaulted. There are no injuries caused and undisputedly no weapon has been used. In this fact situation it is further contended that there is no recovery of ornaments made from the appellant, and no specific role is attributed to him. In the deposition of Hemakant and Savita, who are the key witnesses, the same role is attributed to the accused nos. 2 and 3. The accused nos.2 and 3 are said to have pressed Hemakant under the seat. There are no criminal antecedents against the present appellant. In the above set of facts, the learned Single Judge found that it is a fit case where lenient view is required to be taken and the sentence need to be reduced. Partly allowing the appeal filed by the accused no.2 though conviction is maintained, the sentence imposed by the trial court of ten years came to be reduced to five years. 3 Perused the evidence of Hemakant and Savita. It is crystal clear that the role attributed to the present appellant is the same that has been attributed to accused no. 2. Present appellant as such is entitled to the parity asked for. With the risk of repetition, it is stated that the sentence of accused no.2 was reduced to five years whereas the present appellant is in custody for six years and three months including the period of remission. Thus the learned counsel for the appellant makes a prayer for release of the appellant on the sentence already undergone. The learned APP does not dispute the factual position of the sentence undergone by the appellant. In all fairness the learned APP also does not dispute the fact that the accused nos.2 and 3 who are similarly situated in so far as the role attributed to them in the commission of offence is concerned. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the original accused no.3 deserves to be partly allowed. The conviction of the accused no. 3 under section 395 and 342 is maintained. However, appellant’s sentence under section 395 and 342 of IPC of ten years as given by the trial court is reduced to five years and thus the appellant shall be released on the sentence already undergone. The appellant shall pay fine of Rs. 1000/- as already ordered. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 4. In view of the disposal of the appeal Criminal application does not survive and it is disposed of as such. ....