Judgment: 1. The appellants in these two appeals, question their conviction, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 452, 392 read with 397 under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and sentences of imprisonment ranging from one month to seven years and fine from Rs.2,000/- to 25,000/-, imposed upon them, on conclusion of the trial of Sessions Case No.434 of 2007, before him. 2. The facts which are material for deciding these appeals are as under;- One Ramnath Pilley, is a businessman from South India, who used to come to Mumbai for purchasing garments. On 27th December, 2006, he had come to Mumbai with cash of Rs.15 lacsand was putting up in Adarsha Palace Hotel –at Kalbadevi. He states that he had gone for purchasing garments at 8.00 a.m. on 28.12.2007. He went to the office of G. H. Agencies through whom he was making purchases and handed over cash of Rs.15 lacs, which he carried in a brief case, to one Pratik. Said Pratik kept the cash in the drawer in his office. Then Pilley went again for purchasing mission and came back to the office of G. H. Agency at about 6.00 p.m. in the evening. When he was sitting in the office, a robber is alleged to have come and pointed firearm at the head of Pratik. Another miscreant also joined the first robber. They tied up the persons who were in the office and carried away Rs.15 lacsin cash. Ramnath gave report to the police whereupon an offence was registered and investigation commenced. 3. Two appellants were arrested on 10th and 14th January, 2007 respectively. In the course of investigation, police recovered one Mobile phone of Nokia Company, a wrist watch of titan company, one gold ring, and a sum of Rs.58,000/-from appellant Rakesh under a memorandum. On 15th January,2007 at the instance of appellant Ramchandra, police seized cash amount of Rs.6,32,000/-upon disclosure by appellant Ramchandra. Police had sent the accused persons to jail, where they were subjected to test identification parade. They were allegedly identified by eye witnesses to the incident. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was sent up. 4. On 15th January,2007 at the instance of appellant Ramchandra, police seized cash amount of Rs.6,32,000/-upon disclosure by appellant Ramchandra. Police had sent the accused persons to jail, where they were subjected to test identification parade. They were allegedly identified by eye witnesses to the incident. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was sent up. 4. Upon committal of the case by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case was made over, charged appellants of offences under Sections 452, 392 r/w 397, 341 of the Indian penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge framed, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellants. 5. Upon consideration of the prosecution evidence in the light of defence of denial and false implication raised by the appellants, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby the appellants are before this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the appellants as also learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and with the help of trio, I have gone through the evidence on record. P.W.1 Ramnath Pilley is the victim who claimed to have lost sum of Rs.15 lacs. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the statement which Ramnath made to the police which led to registration of offence is not before the Court. Ramnath claimed that he had made a report in English which police translated and then recorded report vide Exh Nos 14 and 15. P.W.13 PSI Bhoite, who registered an offence and received complaint stated that the complainant was knowing Hindi and the complainant talked to the officer in Hindi. The learned counsel wondered as to how the Officer could have heard the complainant in Hindi if the complainant claimed to have spoken in English. In any case neither Hindi version nor English version of report of Ramnath Pilley is before the Court. What is before the Court is translation in Marathi. The learned counsel, therefore, rightly submitted that this translation at Exh.14 and 15 cannot afford any corroboration to the version of P.W. 1 Ramnath Pilley. 7. In any case neither Hindi version nor English version of report of Ramnath Pilley is before the Court. What is before the Court is translation in Marathi. The learned counsel, therefore, rightly submitted that this translation at Exh.14 and 15 cannot afford any corroboration to the version of P.W. 1 Ramnath Pilley. 7. P.W.1 Ramnath had claimed that on 27th December, 2006 he had gone for purchases of articles, having kept the cash in his room in the lodge where he was putting up. He claims that on the next morning, he went to the office of G. H. Agency and paid an amount of Rs.15 lacs to Naresh. Naresh retained that amount in the office. P.W.2 Pratik was working as Manager of G. H. Agency. Pratik stated that he had received sum of Rs.15 lacs and had kept the same in the drawer of his office which was taken away by the robbers on the incidental evening. Curiously P.W.1 Ramnath stated in para 4 of his examination-in-chief itself that when the robbery took place, cash was contained in a bag with him. If the P.W.1 had handed over cash to Naresh in the morning, there was no question of cash being in the bag of P.W.1. In the cross-examination witness was categorical that he had not seen Pratik in the agency in the morning, whereas, as already recounted, Pratik stated that the cash had been received by him. Apart from this, P.W.1 Ramnath was not called upon by the Investigating Officer to identify the appellants at test identification parade. He identified them directly in the Court. When test identification parade was in fact held and when Ramnath, being a businessman used to visit Mumbai for making purchases, it is not clear as to why he was not made to identify the miscreants in the test identification parade. 8. This is not all. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that P.W.1 Ramnath is categorical that after two accused persons came there, two other persons also joined and four persons had robbed him of his cash. This is not supported by any other eye witness to the incident. In the cross examination, P.W.1 Ramnath also stated that there was no proper opportunity for him to see faces of the persons who had robbed him. This is not supported by any other eye witness to the incident. In the cross examination, P.W.1 Ramnath also stated that there was no proper opportunity for him to see faces of the persons who had robbed him. If that be so, evidence of P.W.1 Ramnath is of no use in connecting the appellants to crime. It is not clear as to why P.W.1 Ramnath made a report when he had already paid cash to G.H. Agency for paying vendors from whom he was purchasing goods. Therefore, the Agency which was robbed was G.H. Agency, yet he chose to give report being uncertain as to whether cash was in the office of G. H. Agency or in his bag. 9. The eye witnesses P.W.2 Pratik, P.W.3 Jombad, P.W.4 Gajendra and P.W. 5 Abhay Bhandari, all state that the accused persons before the Court were not robbers. In fact all of them also stated that the accused Rakesh was not identified by them because he was courier boy who used to come to the Agency. Some of them who had identified accused Rakesh at the test identification parade, memo whereof is at Exh.40 had stated before the Special Executive Officer in no uncertain terms that they identified the accused Rakesh because he was courier boy visiting their agency. Therefore, the evidence of these eye witnesses is useless for connecting the appellants to the time. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellant Ramchandra Gauda i.e. accused No.1 had been identified at test identification parade at Exh.41, by eye witnesses and this identification is not qualified as in the case case of accused Ramchandra. Therefore, she submits that this identification corroborates identification in the Court. This argument could have been valid had these eye witnesses stated that accused Ramchandra was a robber who had come in the incidental evening to the shop. They do not state that the accused persons before the Court were the persons who had come to the shop on the incidental evening. P.W.2 Pratik had stated in para 2 of his deposition that a person who was holding the pistol was not before the Court and also that the person who came subsequently was also not before the Court. P.W.2 Pratik had stated in para 2 of his deposition that a person who was holding the pistol was not before the Court and also that the person who came subsequently was also not before the Court. P.W.3 Zombad had stated in para 4 of his deposition that the person who had shown the pistol and took away the cash was not present before the Court. 11. P.W.4 Gajendra had stated that the persons who had come to the shop were not present before the Court and P.W. 5 Abhay had stated in para 2 of the deposition that the persons who were involved in the crime were not present before the Court. Therefore, the word of P.W.1 Ramnath, the memo of test identification parade or the evidence of eye witnesses would be utterly inadequate in connecting the appellants to the crime. 12. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for both the appellants that the officer who conducted test identification parade has not been examined to dispel doubts about the test identification parade and the manner in which it was conducted. P.W.6 Jayanti is panch at the memorandum of statement made by accused Rakesh and the resultant seizure of cash amount of Rs.58,000/-. P.W.7 Narayan Rane is panch at the search and seizure from accused Rakesh at the time of his arrest, who states that one golden ring and mobile phone were found among other things. P.W.8, Vimal is running a shop states about purchase of one watch on 31st December, 2006. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that this evidence about seizure of cash of Rs.58,000/-and a watch which was purchased by the accused Rakesh soon after the robbery should be enough to connect the accused Rakesh to robbery. The learned counsel submitted that the evidence of P.W.6 Jayanti would show that the cash was seized from a room in a house at Kamatipura. The witness admitted in his cross examination that he had been a witness at panchnama in the past and had also appeared as a witness in the Court. This cash was seized as per panchnama at Exh.24 from the premises belonging to one Laxmibai. P.W.12 PSI Gaikwad who had effected this seizure after making a memorandum, admitted in his cross-examination that he had not obtained signature of Laxmibai on the panchnama. This cash was seized as per panchnama at Exh.24 from the premises belonging to one Laxmibai. P.W.12 PSI Gaikwad who had effected this seizure after making a memorandum, admitted in his cross-examination that he had not obtained signature of Laxmibai on the panchnama. He had stated in the examination-in-chief that Laxmibai had told him that the bag given by the accused Rakesh was kept beneath the cot. He admits that Laxmibai was running a business of prostitution. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the cash was, thus, not seized from the premises of accused Rakesh but from the premises which was frequented by several other persons and occupied by persons in the business of prostitution, who were obviously under the pressure from police. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the appellants the recovery is thoroughly useless to connect the accused Rakesh to crime. It appears that neither statement of Laxmibai was recorded nor she was examined as witness in the trial so as to prove the version of the prosecution that the accused Rakesh had kept the cash in Laxmibai's premises. 14. P.W.10 Deepak is a panch at spot panchnama as also memorandum of statement made by accused Ramchandra which led to recovery of Rs.6,32,000/-. He turned hostile. This memorandum and the resultant seizure is proved by PW.11 PSI Deulkar. This seizure was also effected from a place in Kamathipura. Witness also stated about seizure of Rs.25,000/- from one Biranan Gauda who claimed that amount had been given to him by accused Ramchandra. Mere seizure of some currency notes again from a place not belonging to accused Ramchandra is unlikely to help the prosecution in connecting the accused Ramchandra to crime particularly since the notes do not bear any identification marks nor were the notes stolen described in the report by P.W.1 Ramnath Pilley. 15. P.W.14 PI Vijaykant Hole had conducted the remaining investigation and his evidence is unhelpful in connecting the appellants to crime. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, the only evidence on which the prosecution places reliance for securing conviction of the appellants is seizure of some cash, allegedly at the instance of the appellants from the places not under the control of appellants. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, the only evidence on which the prosecution places reliance for securing conviction of the appellants is seizure of some cash, allegedly at the instance of the appellants from the places not under the control of appellants. The learned counsel pointed out that there is nothing to prove that any cash was in fact actually stolen and that the cash tallied with that recovered. They submit that if a sum of Rs.15 lacs was stolen and the police could trace the appellants as robbers, there is no reason as to why remaining amount of Rs.7,85,000/-could not recovered or purchases made or splurge out of this amount was not traced. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the whole story is fishy, first, because of the discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 Ramnath, and secondly because of the categorical refusal by four eye witnesses to identity the appellants as persons who participated in the robbery. The learned counsel pointed out that their clients had categorically denied the recoveries allegedly attributed to them. In view of this though the learned APP tried to support the judgment, the evidence tendered falls far short of proving guilt of the appellants. 17. In view of Criminal Appeal Nos. 1245 of 2008 and 1153 of 2009 are allowed. 18. The conviction of the appellant Rakesh Shetty in Criminal Appeal No.1245 of 2008 and conviction of the appellant Ramchandra Gauda in Criminal Appeal No.1153 of 2009, for the offence under Sections 452, 392 read with section 397, 341 of Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and sentences imposed on both the appellants are set aside. They are acquitted of the offences charged. 19. The appellant Rakesh Gopal Shetty in Criminal Appeal No.1245 of 2008 be set at liberty if not wanted in any other case. The bail bonds of appellant Ramchandra Gauda are cancelled.