6 held in Rs62-lakh dacoity case in Mumbai acquitted
The court observed that all eyewitnesses were not present at the identification parade, which was not conducted as per procedure.mumbai Updated: Apr 28, 2018 00:43 IST
A sessions court on Friday acquitted six people who were arrested for robbing gold ornaments worth Rs61.78 lakh in 2011.
The court observed that all eyewitnesses were not present at the identification parade, which was not conducted as per procedure. The accused were in the age-group between 25 and 27 when they were arrested in 2011. One of the accused was a student and another, an employee of the shop.
As per the prosecution’s case, the accused showed up at the workshop of Jainisha Jewellers on May 10, 2011, with knives, their faces covered with handkerchiefs. They robbed gold while threatening the employees at the workshop and fled.
The Vanrai police had arrested the accused and recovered valuables worth Rs27.01 lakh on “the instance of the accused” – that is, they got information about the same from the accused. The prosecution submitted before the court that the valuables were recovered from the accused.
The recovered property was handed over to the owner but was not produced during the trial to be identified by the panch witnesses – a lapse on the part of the prosecution. The prosecution examined the eyewitnesses, including manager, owner and other employees of the workshop. Additional sessions judge, FM Khwaja, in his judgment, observed, “The testimony of Semil Jain [manager] and the panch witnesses has material omissions and contradictions. There are loopholes in the investigation.”
Advocate Devdatta Lad, Ashok Gupte and Ashok Dubey, who appeared for the six accused contended that the test identification parade was disputed, an argument that was accepted by the court. The defence told the court only one eye witness was present during the identification parade.
The court also observed that “no description of the stolen articles was given in the FIR, nor was the property produced during the course of trial. The recovery at the instance of accused is not free of doubt”.