On January 2, 1994, two individuals, Appa Bhagwan Patil (Accused No.1) and Manojlal Ramjilal Varma (Accused No.2), were accused of committing a robbery on the Pawan Express, which was traveling from Kurla Terminus to Dombivli. According to the prosecution, both accused boarded the train and, armed with a knife, threatened passengers to extort money. They allegedly collected Rs.275 from the passengers before being apprehended when the train slowed near Dombivli. The charge against them was under Section 392 IPC, which deals with robbery, a criminal offence that involves theft or extortion with the use of force or threat.

The trial court convicted Accused No.1 (Patil) and sentenced him to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,500, while acquitting the second accused (Varma). This decision was upheld by the Sessions Court, leading to the revision petition before the High Court.

Section 392 IPC stipulates the punishment for robbery, which can extend to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. If the robbery occurs on a highway between sunset and sunrise, the punishment can extend to 14 years. Robbery, as defined under Section 390 IPC, can either involve theft or extortion, with the use or threat of force, which was central to the prosecution's case.

The case largely rested on the testimony of the sole eye-witness, PW-2, who claimed to have witnessed the accused extorting money from passengers on the train. However, upon closer examination, several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case came to light.

Contradictory Testimonies: PW-2's testimony was inconsistent with the version given by the complainant. While PW-2 stated that Accused No.1 took Rs.10 from him, the complainant’s version indicated that only Rs.5 was taken from him. This disparity raised doubts about the veracity of the allegations.

Inconsistent Accounts of the Number of Accused: The prosecution's case was that both accused participated in the robbery. However, PW-2 did not provide any details regarding Accused No.2’s involvement, raising questions about whether the second accused was actually present at the scene. Further, no independent witnesses corroborated the events, even though the train was crowded, and the accused were allegedly chased and apprehended by passengers.

Lack of Recovery of the Weapon: The prosecution claimed that the accused had threatened passengers with a knife, but the knife was never recovered. The absence of this crucial piece of evidence further undermined the prosecution’s case. Robbery charges under Section 392 IPC require proof that the accused used or threatened to use force, and the failure to recover the weapon cast doubt on this element.

Contradictory Descriptions: PW-2 did not provide a clear description of the accused, which would have been expected if both accused had been present in a crowded compartment. Moreover, PW-2’s testimony contradicted the complainant’s statement regarding the timing of the incident and the exact nature of the extortion.

Inadequate Prosecution Evidence: The amount recovered from Accused No.1 was Rs.275, but the denomination of the currency notes did not add up logically to this total. Moreover, the absence of a proper recovery panchnama and the failure to establish a clear link between the money recovered and the alleged extortion from passengers left the prosecution’s case tenuous at best.

Testimony of Police Officers: Several police officers, including PW-4 and PW-7, deposed about the arrest of the accused. However, their testimonies failed to clarify essential details, such as how the accused were intercepted and what specifically was seized from them. The lack of clear evidence from the police officers further weakened the prosecution’s case.

The trial court and the Sessions Court based their judgments largely on the testimony of PW-2, the sole eye-witness. However, the inconsistencies in the witness statements, the lack of corroborating evidence, and the absence of the weapon, which was central to the charge of extortion by threat, led to a conclusion that the case against the accused was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court, after reviewing the evidence and the judicial findings, noted significant discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The contradictions between the complainant’s version and the testimony of the eye-witness, the failure to recover the weapon, and the lack of corroborating evidence led the Court to conclude that the conviction was based on insufficient evidence.

The High Court allowed the criminal revision application, quashing the judgments of both the trial court and the Sessions Court. It found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and as a result, both accused were exonerated. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of consistent and corroborated evidence in criminal cases, particularly when dealing with serious charges like robbery.

In light of the numerous contradictions and the lack of key evidence, the High Court concluded that the conviction was not sustainable. The decision highlights the judicial principle that when the evidence is insufficient or inconsistent, the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused.