Judgment : Oral Judgment: 1. Both the appeals are being disposed of by the common judgment in as much as they arise out of same judgment rendered in Sessions Case No. 114 of 2007. 2. By the impugned judgment, the appellants were convicted for offences punishable under section 307 read with section 34, section 399 and section 332 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. For offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code, each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for term of five (5) years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year. For offence punishable under section 399 of the I.P. Code, each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year. For offence punishable under section 332 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code, each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for term of two (2) years. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that A.P.I. Shri Ghuge (PW8) and other police staff members were on patrol duty during night intervening between 27th and 28th November, 2006. While they were moving in a police van, at about 3 a.m., they received instructions from the police Control Room to visit Shreyanagar locality where some dacoits had reportedly attempted to commit the dacoity. The police party immediately proceeded to the said locality. They noticed that some dacoits were running through the area. They gave chase to the suspected dacoits. The suspected persons ran towards residential house of Justice Chapalgaonkar. They had entered compound of a bungalow named "Venu Niwas". While the police party members were giving chase, the members of the gang of suspected dacoits took out some stones from bundles which were with them and started pelting the stones at the police party. Appellant Ajay injured informant Deepak Choudhary (PW1) by means of knife in the course of the attempt made by the police to overpower him. Some witnesses were also injured by the appellants while running away. A.P.I. Ghuge (PW8) resorted to firing. The appellants were thereafter nabbed. However, their three (3) unknown accomplices fled away in the dark. A knife was recovered from possession of appellant Ajay. Some witnesses were also injured by the appellants while running away. A.P.I. Ghuge (PW8) resorted to firing. The appellants were thereafter nabbed. However, their three (3) unknown accomplices fled away in the dark. A knife was recovered from possession of appellant Ajay. A report was lodged by Deepak Choudhary (PW1) who was the driver of the patrolling van in respect of the alleged incident. He and other injured persons were referred to the Medical Officer for clinical examination. On the basis of material gathered during course of investigation, both the appellants were chargesheeted for offences punishable under section 307 read with section 34, section 399 and section 332 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. 4. To the charge (Exh-8), the appellants pleaded not guilty. They denied truth into the accusations. According to them, they were falsely implicated in the criminal case. They asserted that they were picked up from Railway Station platform on suspicion. 5. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all ten (10) witnesses in support of its case. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence. The learned Sessions Judge held that necessary ingredients of the offences were duly proved. The appellants were accordingly convicted and sentenced as described hereinabove. 6. Mr. Kulkarni, for the appellants, would submit that the appellants cannot be convicted for offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code when the alleged incident occurred within a short span without there being any element of enmity between the appellants and the victims. He would further submit that mere presence of the appellants near the place is not sufficient proof of their being members of a gang of dacoits nor it can be said that they had made preparation to commit the dacoity alongwith the so called three (3) absconding accused. He would further submit that the Sessions Court committed patent error while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses and that the material on record is insufficient to prove the offences under sections 307 and 399 of the I.P. Code. He, however, does not press the appeal against the order of conviction and sentence rendered by the Sessions Court for offence punishable under section 332 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. Mr. Dilip Bankar Patil, learned A.P.P. supports the impugned judgment. 7. He, however, does not press the appeal against the order of conviction and sentence rendered by the Sessions Court for offence punishable under section 332 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. Mr. Dilip Bankar Patil, learned A.P.P. supports the impugned judgment. 7. With the help of learned counsel and learned A.P.P., I have gone through the record and proceedings. The versions of Deepak Choudhary (PW1), Mohammad Azar (PW7) and A.P.I. Shri Ghuge (PW8), if considered cumulatively, would show that they were members of the patrolling party at the material time. Their versions go to show that at about 3 a.m., they received instructions from the police Control Room that some dacoits had reportedly attempted thefts in Shreyanagar locality. The versions of these witnesses would make it amply clear that when they reached near said locality, they saw that five (5) suspected dacoits were running from near proximity of house of Justice Chapalgaonkar. When the suspected dacoits saw the police party, they resorted to pelting of stones on the police vehicle. A chase was given to the members of the suspected gang of dacoits. The version of Deepak Choudhary (PW1) reveals that he was working as driver of the police van No. MH-20/U-9678, at the material time. He deposed that appellant Sunil pelted a stone at his head and, therefore, he was injured. His version purports to show that the appellant – Ajay ran towards him with a knife, but then A.P.I. Shri Ghuge (PW8) fired a bullet at him. His version indicates as to how the appellants challenged the police party. He alongwith Mohammad Azar (PW7) overpowered appellant Sunil. His version further discloses that Amol Jain (PW2) came out of the nearby bungalow when appellant Ajay jumped inside his bungalow from the compound wall. Amol Jain (PW2) gave chase to appellant Ajay. At that time, appellant Ajay knifed Amol Jain (PW2) and, therefore, A.P.I. Shri Ghuge (PW8) immediately fired at Ajay. Some members of the locality gathered around the place. Appellant Ajay was overpowered by Mohammad Azar (PW7). The F.I.R. (Exh-12) is corroborated by Deepak Choudhary (PW1). 8. There is no effective cross-examination directed against the witnesses. In fact, it was not even suggested to them that the appellants were picked up from the Railway station platform. The entire cross-examination comprises of mere suggestions. No substantial material is gathered from their cross-examination so as to dislodge their versions. The F.I.R. (Exh-12) is corroborated by Deepak Choudhary (PW1). 8. There is no effective cross-examination directed against the witnesses. In fact, it was not even suggested to them that the appellants were picked up from the Railway station platform. The entire cross-examination comprises of mere suggestions. No substantial material is gathered from their cross-examination so as to dislodge their versions. Their versions are corroborated by Amol Jain (PW2) and Dinanath (PW5). It is pertinent to note that Amol Jain and Dinanath are independent witnesses. Both of them narrated as to how the incident occurred. Their versions would make it .amply clear that in the wee hours, there was chase given by the police party to the suspected members of the gang of dacoits. It is worthy to be noted that Amol Jain (PW2) sustained bleeding injury during course of the incident. His version purports to show that the appellant – Ajay gave blow of knife on his person, but since he had raised firearm, the blow was received on his hand. 9. The injury certificates issued by PW10 Dr. Wanole would also lend assurance to the versions of the prosecution witnesses. These injury certificates (Exh-26 to Exh-29) would indicate that injured Deepak Choudhary (PW1), Mohammad Azar (PW7) and Amol Jain (PW2) were examined with promptitude. It was noticed that they had received the injuries as shown in the medical certificates (Exh-26, Exh-28 and Exh-30). 10. The version of Dinanath (PW5) further reveals that during the scuffle with the suspected dacoits, some articles were dropped by those suspects by side of the house. Those articles included an iron tommy, two (2) scarfs, battery, two (2) pairs of chappals, etc. Those articles were recovered from the spot under a panchanama. The panchanama of the spot (Exh-15) is duly corroborated by Shrimant (PW3). His version reveals that the window of house situated on plot No. 19 was found broken. One of its plank was bent. The police recovered screw drivers, a big knife, etc. Thus, his version and the version of Dinanath correspond to each other in so far as recovery of the articles is concerned. His version further shows that the police party visited other house property and one (1) shop. At the shop, the shutter was half-open and the articles inside the shop were found lying helter-skelter. These are taletelling circumstances. Thus, his version and the version of Dinanath correspond to each other in so far as recovery of the articles is concerned. His version further shows that the police party visited other house property and one (1) shop. At the shop, the shutter was half-open and the articles inside the shop were found lying helter-skelter. These are taletelling circumstances. At odd hours of the night, when the half shutter of the shop was found open and the articles were lying scattered, the only deducible inference would be that there was an attempt to commit housebreaking and theft in the shop. What transpires from the prosecution evidence is that the group of five (5) burglars had attempted the burglary in the wee hours, but some residents of the locality had informed the police about the attempted dacoity. It was at the nick of time that the police help was available. It was due to such immediate action that the bid to commit the dacoity could be foiled. There is ample evidence on record to show that after frantic efforts, the appellants could be overpowered notwithstanding strong resistance on their part. The empty cartridges of the bullets fired at them were recovered from the near the house. 11. So far as the charge for offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code is concerned, I find considerable substance in the contention of Mr. Kulkarni. The medical certificate would show that simple injuries were found on the person of Dilip Choudhary and other witnesses. The version of Dr. Wanole (PW10) would show that not a single injury shown in the injury certificate could have been caused by means of sharp edged weapon. Needless to say use of the knife is improbabalized due to the medical opinion. It is worthwhile to note that the knife was not sent to office of the Chemical Analyser in order to verify whether there was any stain of human blood on the edge thereof. All said and done, in the absence of the necessary evidence to show that the intention of the appellants was to cause death of either of the victims, they could not have been .convicted for offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. All said and done, in the absence of the necessary evidence to show that the intention of the appellants was to cause death of either of the victims, they could not have been .convicted for offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. The learned A.P.P. would, however, submit that the appellants could be convicted for an offence of attempt to cause death of the prosecution witnesses though the injuries were not serious. It is argued that the appellants had given threats to the witnesses to kill members of the police party if the chase was continued. At the most, such acts of the appellants could be treated as resistance to the act of their arrests. If they had any intention to cause death of the members of police party or the witnesses, ordinarily multiple and serious wounds would have been inflicted by them in the course of the alleged assault. There was no injury found on any vital part of the body of the injured witnesses. Under these circumstances, I find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. 12. It may be mentioned that learned advocate Mr. Kulkarni referred to certain authorities, which are as follows : .(i) Parsuram Pandey and others v. State of Bihar 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 796 (S.C.) .(ii) Jai Narain Mishra and others v. The State of Bihar 1972 CRI.L.J.469 (iii) Merambhai Punjabhai Khachar and others v. State of Gujarat AIR 1996 S.C. 3236 (i) Hari Kishan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh and others AIR 1988 S.C. 2127 Learned A.P.P. also referred to "State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and others" AIR 1983 S.C. 305. However, it is not necessary to consider these authorities in view of the peculiar fact situation which may be distinguished on factual matrix. 13. Coming to the question of legality and propriety of conviction for offence punishable under section 399 of the I.P. Code, I find that there are incriminating circumstances brought on surface of the record which would prove that the appellants were members of the gang of dacoits and had reached the place with preparation for committing offence of dacoity. Section 399 reads as follows : ."399. Section 399 reads as follows : ."399. Making preparation to commit dacoity.- Whoever makes any preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 14. The version of independent witness – Dinanath (PW5) would make it amply clear that an iron tommy and other articles were recovered from the place. It is also proved that one of the shops was subjected to attempted burglary. The version of Shrimant (PW3) reveals that at Gautam Super Shoppee situated in Sahakarnagar area, the half portion of the shutter was found opened. The .articles in the shop were found lying helter-skelter. The appellants did not explain as to what was reason of their presence in the locality at such odd hours. The independent witnesses like Amol Jain (PW2) and Dinanath (PW5) have no business to falsely implicate the appellants. The absence of any explanation by the appellants would be an additional piece of circumstantial evidence against them completing the chain establishing the charge of preparation for committing dacoity. 15. Mr. Kulkarni invited my attention to certain observations in "Chaturi Yadav and others v. State of Bihar" AIR 1989 S.C. 1412. It was a case in which the prosecution alleged that the group of eight (8) persons was found in the school premises which was in the proximity of the market place. The Apex Court held that mere presence of the appellants inside the premises could not give rise to inference that they had assembled with an intention to commit offence of dacoity. The Apex Court observed that the possibility that the appellants may have collected for the purpose of murdering somebody or committing some other offence could not be safely eliminated. That is why it was held that an offence punishable under section 399 of the I.P. Code was not made out. The fact situation in the present case is altogether different. Herein, there is evidence to show that unsuccessful attempt was made to commit burglary at a shop and thereafter, the residents had tipped the police. The police party members caught the appellants in the proximity of the place where the attempted burglary was being committed. The appellants failed to explain why they had been to the locality at such odd hours. The iron tommy and knife were recovered from place of the incident. The police party members caught the appellants in the proximity of the place where the attempted burglary was being committed. The appellants failed to explain why they had been to the locality at such odd hours. The iron tommy and knife were recovered from place of the incident. The irresistible conclusion would be that the appellants alongwith three (3) accomplices, who successfully fled away, were members of the gang of dacoits and had made preparation to commit the offence of dacoity. Obviously, the impugned order of conviction and sentence for offence punishable under section 399 of the I.P. Code is quiet legal, proper and correct. 16. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned judgement to the extent of conviction and sentence of both the appellants, for offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code is set aside. Both the appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under section 307 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code. The remaining part of the impugned judgement in respect of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under section 399 of the I.P. Code and in respect of offence punishable under section 332 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code is, however, maintained. The period of detention/sentence already undergone by both the appellants shall be treated as set-off, as per provisions under section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The muddemal articles shall be destroyed after lapse of the appeal period. CDJLawJournal