Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The robbers then opened locker of the cupboard and took out money and ear rings. Thereafter they had forcibly taken 203-APPEALS-386-2012-975-2015.doc mangalsutra (mini ganthan) from the first informant PW1 Vandana Ugale and also snatched her mobile phone. While on their way out, as PW2 Daulat Ugale followed them, robbers assaulted him by means of iron rod. When PW1 Vandana Ugale attempted to save her husband, she was also assaulted. After looting gold ornaments, mobile phone and cash amounting to Rs.5,000/-, robbers fled from the spot.

6 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused record and proceedings including oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. 2 Criminal Appeal No.769 of 1996 decided on 2nd February 2005 3 (1992) 3 Supreme Court Cases 700 203-APPEALS-386-2012-975-2015.doc 7 At the outset, let us examine whether there was robbery at the house of First Informant PW1 Vandana Ugale in the night intervening 17th March 2010 and 18th March 2010, during the course of which, cash, gold ornaments and mobile phone came to be looted. On this aspect, evidence of victims of crime, i.e., PW1 Vandana Ugale and PW2 Daulat Ugale is of great importance. They both unanimously deposed that on 17th March 2010, after having dinner, they slept in their house situated at Gujarmala area of Shirur Taluka, in Pune District. Their congruous evidence shows that in the night intervening 17 th March 2010 and 18th March 2010, at about 2.00 a.m. to 2.30 a.m., they saw two persons in their house holding a knife and an iron bar. It is in evidence of PW1 Vandana Ugale and PW2 Daulat Ugale that by threatening them at the point of knife, robbers had taken key of the cupboard from them. It was then opened and currency notes amounting to Rs.5,000/- and a set of ear rings was taken therefrom by robbers. PW1 Vandana Ugale testified and PW2 Daulat Ugale corroborated that thereafter robbers had snatched 203-APPEALS-386-2012-975-2015.doc the mangalsutra (mini ganthan) as well as mobile phone from PW1 Vandana Ugale. When they were going out, PW2 Daulat Ugale followed them which resulted in assault on him by means of an iron rod. PW1 Vandana Ugale also deposed the same fact and stated that when she went to save her husband, she was also assaulted by robbers. As per version of PW1 Vandana Ugale, there were three to four persons, who indulged in robbery at her house. 8 As seen from evidence of PW1 Vandana Ugale, after the incident, she accompanied by her husband PW2 Daulat Ugale, had been to Shirur Police Station immediately to lodge report Exhibit 61. Thereafter, they were sent for medical treatment to Rural hospital at Shirur.

15 While in the witness box, PW1 Vandana Ugale has stated that she can identify robbers and accordingly she has identified appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale before the court. Similarly, she has deposed that during the identification parade conducted by the Investigator, she had identified this accused. So far as identification of gold ornaments robbed from 203-APPEALS-386-2012-975-2015.doc her is concerned, while in the witness box, sealed packet containing seized articles came to be opened by the learned trial Judge and Article A i.e. mangalsutra (mini ganthan) weighing 15 gms. and one pair of ear rings was shown to PW1 Vandana Ugale. Her evidence shows that she identified those articles by stating that those were stolen from her in the incident dated 18 th March 2010. The material elicited from her cross-examination on this aspect is already stated in foregoing paragraph. So far as PW2 Daulat Ugale is concerned, while in the dock, this witness identified appellant / accused no.1 Ramesh Bhosale. He had also identified co-accused Tanhya Kale. He was shown Article A i.e. mangalsutra (mini ganthan) and a set of ear rings and this witness had deposed that these are the same articles which were stolen by the thieves from his house.

16 The learned advocate for the appellant / accused no.3 Anand Raimokar had questioned the identification of gold ornaments by PW1 Vandana Ugale and PW2 Daulat Ugale while in the dock for the first time by contending that those articles were 203-APPEALS-386-2012-975-2015.doc not mixed with similar articles in order to enable prosecution witnesses to identify those articles. This court is not oblivious of the fact that identified gold ornaments were not having identification marks on them as admitted by PW1 Vandana Ugale and PW2 Daulat Ugale. There is no rule of law that seized ornaments must be mixed with several similar ornaments for enabling the prosecution witnesses to identify their ornaments. On the contrary in the matter of Earabhadrappa vs. State of Karnataka4 the Hon'ble Apex Court has noted that it is a matter of common knowledge that ladies have an uncanny sense of identifying their own belongings. In the case in hand, PW1 Vandana Ugale was owner of mangalsutra (mini ganthan) and a set or ear rings which was stolen from her house in the night of the incident. She has identified those articles while in the witness box, though these were not having any special identification mark. The mangalsutra (mini ganthan) shown to PW1 Vandana Ugale was an ornament of her daily use and her evidence shows that it was snatched from her person by robbers. Considering observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of 4 AIR 1983 SC 446 203-APPEALS-386-2012-975-2015.doc Earabhadrappa (supra) it cannot be said that identification of seized ornaments by PW1 Vandana Ugale and her husband PW2 Daulat Ugale is in any manner doubtful.