1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2006 Mohammad Bilal Yasin Shaikh ...Appellant (Orig.Accused) vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.Swapnil Wagh, Advocate appointed for the Appellant. Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : MARCH 15, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the appellant who is appointed as amicus curiae in this Court. 2 Prosecution case is that the appellant along with 3 to 4 other persons took away an amount of Rs.1 lakh at the point of knife from one Ratan 2 Bahadur Khadka. While he was trying to run away from the scene of offence, he was apprehended by a police officer near Mumbadevi temple. The other three accused, however, ran away. An amount of Rs.1 lakh and the knife was recovered from the appellant. The appellant is in jail from 29 th January, 2004. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses. PW1 Sanjay Amrutlal Gudka is carrying on his textile business at Kalbadevi. PW2 Ratan Bahadur Khadka is a person from whom cash of Rs.1 lakh was robbed by the appellant. PW3 is an independent eye witness vis. Narendra Dattatraya Devrukhakar. PW4 is a police constable Vijay Pandurang Patil. He was on duty at the temple along with PW7 Shivaji Siddhu Raje. PW5 was also on duty as a Police Sub-Inspector. 3 I have perused the evidence of these witnesses. It has been established by the prosecution that the accused was caught red handed by the police officials which were on duty at that time. A mere suggestion has been made in the cross- 3 examination that the accused was falsely implicated. There is no reason to discard the evidence of these witnesses. The prosecution, in my view, has established that there was commission of robbery or dacoity. It is also established that the accused used a deadly weapon. From the evidence of PW2, it is established that four persons surrounded him and they kept a knife on his stomach and asked him to handover cash which was kept by him inside his shirt. In view of this evidence, the prosecution has established that offence under Section 397 has been committed by the present appellant. In my view, there is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Sessions Court. 4 So far as sentence is concerned, the appellant has already undergone almost 90% of the sentence. This appears to be his first offence. The sentence, therefore, awarded by the Sessions Court is reduced to the sentence which the appellant had already undergone. The appellant, therefore, be 4 released forthwith on the sentence which he had already undergone. 5 The appeal, accordingly, is partly allowed and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)