Case: Chandrasekhar Surechandra Bhatt &amp; Others Vs. State of Maharashtra

2. The case of the prosecution was this : A gang of dacoits including the appellants determined to make a strike, during the night ofon the residence of an industrialist by the name of Govind Damodar Kelkar (he is said to be one of the proprietors of an industry by the name of S. H. Kelkar and Company), loot the residents and to kidnap him, to keep him for ransom by knocking off a huge sum of Rs. 20 crores. The police had sleuth information regarding the planned operation and therefore they formed a raiding party for outwitting the dacoity attempt. One of the police party was sent in the guise of a tea peddler and the remaining police party took different places in anticipation of the arrival of the dacoits. The police party was headed by Inspector Naik (before he could be examined in court he died in a motor accident). After midnight the dacoits came in two motor cars and reached the particular spot. The dacoits alighted from both the cars and then P.W. 2who was in the guise of a tea peddler went towards them offering tea. They declined the offer for supply of tea, but P.W. 2 passed the predetermined signal to the other police officers who immediately emerged from concealment and overpowered the dacoits in the said operation. First appellant Chandrasekhar Bhatt fired his pistol at the chest of Inspector Naik. But he escaped as he was then wearing a bulletproof vestment. The bullet got embedded in the vestment, but did not go further forward. All the dacoits were caught except one Shekhar @ Anna Sonnappa Hegade who escaped from being caught.3. A pistol was recovered from the first appellant and a revolver was recovered from the second appellant for which a panchnama was prepared. The bullet embedded in the vestment worn by Inspector Naik was taken out at the police station for which also a panchnama was prepared.4. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.W. 2 theof Police who went in the guise of a tea peddler, P.W. 4 a Chowkidar attached to Kelkar Industries and P.W. 15 Atma Ram who was also present at the time of the operation though he had conducted part of the investigation also.5. As the most important evidence was that of P.W. 2on whose information the FIR was registered at 1.45 a.m. on the same night, we went into his evidence threadbare. We perused the other evidence also. P.W. 2 had given full narration of the event. If his testimony is believed it admits of no doubt that the conviction passed by the Designated Court should be upheld.This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (in short "TADA" ). Four persons were convicted by a Designated Court, first among them was of the offences under Sections 307 and 399 of the Indian Penal Code. The remaining appellants were convicted under Section 399 IPC alone. The first appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years on the first count and all the appellants were given the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years in respect of the latter count. As a charge framed against them included offence under TADA it was tried before the Designated Court as per the provisions of TADA.

Reasoning: We have applied our mind and noticed that though there were some marginal variations on certain aspects as between his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the testimony given in court, such variations cannot be dubbed as improvements made with any sinister motive. They are elaborations elicited by the Public Prosecutor during theIt is the prerogative of the Public Prosecutor to elicit such points from a witness as he deems necessary for the case. No Public Prosecutor can be nailed to the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code. We scrutinised theimprovements from that angle and we are satisfied that P.W. 2 had basically remained at the same position which he has stated in theare only interested in weighing the evidence of the Chowkidar who was examined and not the one who was not examined, unless theof that Chowkidar could be shown to be of any ulterior motive. The defence did not establish any such ulterior motive for not examining the otherare unable to appreciate the said argument in the light of the use of the lethal weapon and the situs of thethe Designated Court placed reliance on that part of the evidence of P.W. 2 we do not find any reason to take a different view thereon.11. On the whole we are satisfied that the prosecution has made out the case for the offence under Section 307 IPC as against the first appellant and Section 399 IPC as against all the appellants.12. Though a plea was made for reduction of the sentence, on the broader conspectus of this case and the lethal weapons used by the dacoits, we are not inclined to show any leniency. Accordingly, we maintain the sentence as well.