Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Manoj And Anr on 3 July, 2017
Bench: S.S. Shinde
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.188 OF 2000
The State of Maharashtra APPELLANT
[Ori. complainant]
VERSUS
1. Manoj Kantilal Nidhane,
age 26 yrs.
2. Punam Kantilal Dhandore,
age 25 yrs.
Both R/o. Gurunanak Nagar,
Jalgaon. RESPONDENTS
[ori.accused]
...
Mr.A.A.Jagatkar, APP for the Appellant-
State.
Mr.K.C.Sant, Advocate for the respondents -
accused.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
Reserved on : 21.06.2017
Pronounced on : 03.07.2017
JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
1. This Appeal is filed by the
appellant-State, challenging the judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the Sessions
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
Judge, Jalgaon on 29th January, 2000 in
Sessions Case No.141/1998.
2. The prosecution case in nutshell is
as under:
It is the case of the prosecution
that on 27th April, 1998, Vijay Pralhad
Marathe [PW-4] had been to the house of
Suresh Khandelwal [deceased]. In the said
house, Suresh and his mother were present.
He had chit-chat with them. At about 8.30
p.m. Suresh along with Vijay [PW-4] started
going towards railway line so as to attend
nature's call. When they reached near the
house of Meerabai Patil, both of them saw
Manoj and Punam coming from the railway line.
It is further the case of the prosecution
that Manoj abused Suresh in the name of his
mother, and said that Suresh had become rude.
Suresh also replied to the abuses given by
Manoj in the same manner. Manoj and Punam
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
started giving kicks and fist blows to
Suresh. Thereafter, Manoj and Punam drew
chopper from their waist, and assaulted
Suresh on his head, forehead, stomach and
chest, by giving him blows by said weapon in
quick succession. Vijay [PW-4] when tried to
intervene, Manoj gave him a blow with the
chopper on his head. Vijay raised hue and
cry, and Manoj and Punam ran away from the
spot of incident. The injured Suresh sat down
at the place of incident holding his stomach.
Vijay went to the house of Suresh and called
his mother. With the help of mother of
Suresh, Vijay took Suresh to the Police
Station and lateron to the Civil Hospital,
Jalgaon. During treatment, Suresh expired.
The PSI Jagtap of Shani Peth Police Station
went to the Civil Hospital, Jalgaon to record
statement of Suresh. However, the Medical
Officer informed him that, Suresh is not in a
position to give statement. Then PSI Jagtap
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
went to the injured Vijay [PW-4], who was
also admitted in the same Civil Hospital
wherein Suresh was admitted, and recorded his
statement.
On the basis of the statement of
Vijay [PW-4], Shani Peth Police Station
registered Crime No.16/1998 for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 324 r/w. 34 of
the I.P. Code. The Police Inspector Mr.
Jawale carried out investigation. On 28th
April, 1998, he visited the place of
incident, and prepared the spot panchnama. He
referred the dead body of Suresh for
postmortem examination after preparing
inquest panchnama. He attached the clothes on
the person of Suresh and Vijay under the
seizure panchnama. He recorded the statements
of the witnesses, and also arrested the
accused. It is further the case of the
prosecution that when the accused were in the
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
Police custody on 10th May, 1998, they made
statement that, they had kept knife at their
respective houses, and accordingly,
memorandum statements of both the accused
came to be prepared. The knives produced by
the accused came to be attached under the
panchnama. Lateron, the Investigating Officer
referred the attached articles to the C.A. at
Aurangabad. On receipt of the P.M. report,
and also report from the C.A., and on
completion of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted the charge-
sheet before the Competent Court, who
committed the case to Sessions Court.
3. The trial Court framed charge
against accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 324 r/w. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The accused have denied to have
committed any offence and have contended that
they have been falsely implicated in the
case.
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
4. After full-fledged trial, both the
accused were acquitted by the Sessions Court
at Jalgaon. Hence this Appeal filed by the
appellant - state.
5. Learned APP appearing for the
appellant-State invites our attention to the
impugned judgment, and submits that the trial
Court though made reference to the deposition
of Vijay [PW-4], nevertheless did not record
any specific findings why his evidence cannot
form basis for conviction of the accused. It
is submitted that Vijay [PW-4] sustained
injury on his head. He was hospitalized. His
statement was recorded by the Police Officer
immediately within few hours. Since he
himself is injured witness, and his oral
testimony gets corroboration in material
particulars from the medical evidence, there
was no reason for the trial Court to acquit
the respondents. It is submitted that by
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
ignoring the substantive piece of evidence in
the nature of oral testimony of Vijay [PW-4]
which gets complete corroboration from the
medical evidence, and other attending
circumstances, the view taken by the trial
Court of acquitting the respondents was not
possible at all. It is submitted that the
evidence of other witnesses also fully
supports prosecution case. There was
immediate lodging of FIR, and that ruled out
possibility of having any concocted version
in the FIR. Learned APP invites our attention
to the evidence of Vijay [PW-4], and also
other two prosecution witnesses, and also
other evidence brought on record, and submits
that the appeal deserves to be allowed
thereby setting aside the order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court.
6. On the other hand, Mr.K.C.Sant
learned counsel appearing for respondents-
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
accused, placing reliance upon the findings
recorded by the trial Court, submits that the
trial Court has taken a possible view, and
the findings recorded by the trial Court are
in consonance with the evidence brought on
record. It is submitted that the Panch to the
spot panchnama has stated that the spot of
incident is near the railway line at Chaugule
plot, and the prosecution witnesses have
stated different spot of incident, and
therefore, the trial Court reached to the
conclusion that the prosecution was not able
to prove the actual spot of incident. It is
submitted that it has come on record that the
alleged incident had taken place during night
time, and there was no sufficient light so as
to have opportunity to see assailants by the
prosecution witnesses.
7. He invites our attention to the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and
submits that it suffers from contradictions,
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
omissions and improvements. There was delay
of one day in recording the statement of
Sanjeev [PW-5] and Nivrutti [PW-6], and said
delay has not been explained by the
prosecution. The trial Court, upon
appreciation of the evidence of Sanjeev
[PW-5] and Nivrutti [PW-6], has reached to
the correct conclusion that they have not
witnessed the actual incident. An alleged
recovery of the clothes and weapon is
disbelieved by the trial Court by assigning
sufficient reasons. Therefore, relying upon
the findings recorded by the trial Court, and
notes of evidence, learned counsel appearing
for respondents submits that the appeal may
be dismissed.
8. We have given careful consideration
to the submissions of the learned APP
appearing for the appellant-State, and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents
- accused at length. With their able
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
assistance, perused the entire notes of
evidence, and also reasons / findings
assigned / recorded by the trial Court. We
are at pains to note that the trial Court
except producing the contents of the
deposition of Vijay [PW-4] before the Court,
has not given any reasons/findings for not
accepting his evidence, so as to appreciate
the evidence in its entirety so as to reach
to correct and just conclusion. There is not
even single comment made by the trial Court
about acceptability or rejection of the
evidence of Vijay [PW-4], who was injured in
the alleged incident. Therefore, there is
complete failure on the part of the trial
Court to exercise jurisdiction vested in it
and appreciate the evidence in its entirety.
In fact, Vijay [PW-4] is a star witness of
the prosecution, who was injured in the
incident. He was hospitalized. His statement
was immediately recorded within four hours
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
from happening of the incident.
9. In his deposition before the Court,
he stated that he is staying in Kanchan Nagar
at Jalgaon. He knows Suresh Khandelwal
[deceased]. On the date of incident at about
8.00 p.m. in the evening, he went to the
house of Suresh. In his house, his mother
Leelabai was present. They had chit chat, and
he himself and deceased Suresh went to answer
nature's call. They went for the said purpose
near to railway line. Both the accused met
them near the house of Patilbai. The accused
said to Suresh that you have become very rude
[तू बहोत मात गया है]. There was scuffle between
the accused and Suresh. At this juncture, it
needs to be noted that in vernacular it is
stated that, there was scuffle between Suresh
and Poonam. However, while recording the
deposition in English, it is written that
there was scuffle between two accused and
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
Suresh. Both the accused started assaulting
Suresh with knife and fell him down. They
assaulted Suresh on his head, face and
stomach. When he tried to intervene to pacify
the quarrel, accused persons assaulted him on
his head. When he shouted, people came there
and the accused ran away. Nivrutti Digambar
Koli, Sanju Onkar Gondhali and Anil Dagdu
Mali came at the spot of incident. He went to
the house of Suresh and brought his mother at
the spot of the incident. They took Suresh to
the Police Station and lateron to the Civil
Hospital. Thereafter, Suresh expired within
15 minutes. He lodged complaint with the
Police Station, and the Police reduced his
complaint into writing. The same was read
over to him. He admitted the contents of the
said complaint. He put his thumb mark on the
said complaint/FIR. He stated that it is the
same complaint, which was narrated by him to
the Police.
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
10. During his cross examination, he
[PW-4] stated that the incident took place in
an open space, which is between the house of
Suresh and Meera Patil. The house of Meera
Patil is at a distance of about 5 to 10 feet
from the place of incident. The accused were
standing at the place of incident, when they
reached there. The exchange of words took
place, and thereafter, at the same place
accused assaulted Suresh. Besides Vijay,
nobody intervened. There were 4-5 persons
standing at a distance of about 10 to 15 feet
from the place of incident. Blood was oozing
from the injury caused on his head and blood
stains spread over his clothes. He did not
make Suresh to sleep. He made Suresh to sit.
He caught hold Suresh and made him to sit in
sitting position. He went to the house of
Suresh and called his mother within 5
minutes. He carried Suresh to a distance
about 50 feet and then hired rickshaw. First
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
they went to the Shani Peth Police Station,
which is at the distance of about half
kilometer from the place of incident. When he
went to Shani Peth Police Station, he was
cool and calm. There was no panic in his mind
as to whether first to go to Police or the
Hospital or to the Leader. The story narrated
by him in the Court was also earlier told by
him to the mother of Suresh. He narrated the
incident to the PSI at Shani Peth Police
Station when he went to give complaint. He
took about half an hour to narrate the said
incident to the PSI. When he narrated the
incident, Suresh was made to sleep on the
bench at the Police Station. Suresh was taken
to the Hospital in a police jeep. He cannot
tell the registration number of the riksha or
the name of driver of the riksha. The PSI
followed them to the Civil Hospital. When he
took Suresh to Shani Peth and lateron to
Civil Hospital, Suresh was unconscious. The
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
PSI Jawale inquired with him about the
incident at the Hospital. PSI made enquiries
with him at about 9.15 or 9.30 p.m. After his
statement was recorded, he was discharged
from the Hospital. Again he was called at the
police station on the next date at about 9.00
a.m. or so. At that time, his thumb
impression was taken on the complaint, which
was written on the previous date.
Thereafter, he was not called at the Police
Station. He has shown the place of incident
to the Police on the next day of incident.
After the postmortem was over, he shown the
place of incident to the police.
11. He further stated that, he worked as
a labourer for the centering work. He denied
suggestion that he had sustained injury on
his head on account of falling of brick,
seven or eight days prior to the incident. He
does not know Suresh was an accused in the
cases of causing grievous hurt, kidnapping,
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
robbery etc. He is not an accused in any
criminal case. He denied suggestion that the
police suspected him, Anil, Nivrutti and
Sanju for assaulting Suresh and that they
were made to sit at Shani Peth Police Station
through out the night. He denied suggestion
that thereafter with a view to save their
skin, they narrated false story to the
police. He denied suggestion that they have
falsely implicated the accused in the case.
He denied suggestion that the accused were
not present when the incident took place. He
denied suggestion that he has not seen any
incident. He denied suggestion that Suresh
was assaulted by unknown person.
12. Dr.Sharadsingh Gulabsingh Pardeshi
[PW-9], who was working as an Medical
Officer, Primary Health Centre, Mehunbare,
District Jalgaon. Dr.Sharadsingh [PW-9]
examined Vijay [PW-4] and found contusion 2
inch over the left parietal region. The said
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
injury was simple in nature. The prosecution
proved the injury certificate at Exh.43
through PW-9. It is true that he stated that
such injury can be possible by fall against
rough substance. However, keeping in view the
evidence of Vijay [PW-4] that accused
assaulted him on head, gets fortified from
the medical evidence. An alleged incident
narrated by Vijay [PW-4] was about 8.30 to
9.00 p.m. on 27th April, 1998. While narrating
the incident to the Police, he stated that
the incident had taken place on 27th April,
1998, in between 8.30 to 8.45 p.m. near the
Chaugule Plot. The deceased Suresh was
immediately taken to the Police Station, and
thereafter to the Hospital. Vijay [PW-4] was
also admitted in the same Hospital where
Suresh was taken for treatment.
13. The police recorded the statement of
Vijay [PW-4] in the hospital at 11.00 p.m. as
it is apparent from the perusal of the
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
contents of FIR, wherein there is an
endorsement made by the Medical Officer that
Vijay [PW-4] was conscious at the time of
giving statement. The said endorsement is
given at 11.00 p.m., and the time of
recording of the FIR is mentioned as 23.30
hours. By that time Suresh was no more. It
has also come on record from the spot of
incident that when Suresh was taken to the
Police and Hospital, he was unconscious.
There is no slightest doubt that Vijay [PW-4]
took immediate steps to go to the Police
Station, and thereafter, Suresh was taken to
the Hospital. Therefore, it is abundantly
clear that the FIR was lodged within two
hours from the alleged incident, which
completely ruled out possibility of any
concoction or exaggeration by Vijay [PW-4]
while narrating the FIR. The presence of
Vijay [PW-4] is proved beyond reasonable
doubt by the prosecution inasmuch as he
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
sustained injuries as it is noticed by
Dr.Sharadsingh Pardeshi [PW-9] while
examining Vijay [PW-4]. The evidence of Vijay
[PW-4] gets corroboration from the medical
evidence, and the prosecution has proved the
presence of Vijay at the spot of incident,
and he has actually witnessed the incident.
14. The prosecution examined Ramakant
Vasantrao Jawale as PW-8, who conducted the
investigation. Upon careful perusal of his
evidence, he has narrated in detail the
events occurred and further investigation
carried by him. It is clear from reading his
evidence that the First Information Report
was registered within 4 hours from the date
of alleged incident. It appears that as
stated by Vijay [PW-4] the incident had taken
place in between 8.30 to 8.45 p.m., and his
statement in the Hospital was recorded at
about 11.00 p.m. on the same day.
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
15. The Investigating Officer has
brought on record the memorandum of
postmortem examination of deceased Suresh
Ramkisan Khandelwal. The said postmortem
report is exhibited at Exh.44. The Medical
Officer, who performed the postmortem, opined
that 'death due to shock due to multiple
injuries. In column no.17, there are as many
as 13 injuries, which are as under:
1] Incised wound behind right mastoid
oblique, elliptical 3cmx1cm bone
deep.
2] Incised wound above right pinna,
temporal area 2½cm x 1cm,
elliptical, bone deep.
3] Incised wound right parietal area 4
cm x 1cm elliptical, bone deep.
4] Incised wound right temporo-parietal
area 7cm above right pinna, oblique,
elliptical, bone deep 6 cm x 1 cm.
5] Incised wound right forehead above
right eyebrow 6cm x 1cm bone deep.
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
6] Incised wound left parietal area,
elliptical bone deep 6 cm x 1 cm.
7] Stab wound below right costal margin
on anterolateral aspect, vertical, 5
cm, vertical stitched margins sharp.
8] Stab wound on left side chest in 8th
Ics in midclavicular line, vertical,
sharp margins, omentum coming out.
9] Linear scratch abrasion above
umbiliar 10 cm x ½ cm.
10] Incised wound over right wrist on
matial aspect 2 cm x 1 cm bone deep.
11] Incised wound over left thmb
eminence on palmer aspect 2 cm x ½
cm.
12] Abrasion over right spine at scapula
3 cm x 2 cm.
13] Incised wound on right side at
scapular angle 2 cm x 1 cm.
16. Upon careful perusal of the afore-
mentioned injuries, there is no slightest
doubt in the mind that Suresh died homicidal
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
death, and assaulted by sharp weapon as
stated by Vijay [PW-4]. Since there is no
challenge to the Exhibit-44 by the defence
whether the Medical Officer who performed the
postmortem report is examined or otherwise is
of no consequences.
17. In the light of evidence of Vijay
[PW-4], and also Dr.Sharadsingh Pardeshi
[PW-9], there is no manner of doubt that it
was possible for the trial Court to base the
conviction of the respondents-accused on the
strength of the evidence of Vijay [PW-4] and
Medical evidence, and other evidence in
relation to the statement made by Vijay
[PW-4] during recording of his deposition
before the court. However, as already
observed, the trial Court though reproduced
the statements in examination in chief and
cross examination of Vijay [PW-4] in the
impugned judgment, however, did not give any
reasons/findings either to accept the said
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
evidence or to discard the said evidence.
18. In our considered view, the view
taken by the trial Court by not considering
the evidence of Vijay [PW-4], and the medical
evidence and also evidence of Investigating
Officer was not possible. The view taken by
the trial Court, acquitting the respondents-
accused, was not possible, and only possible
view was the conviction of the respondents -
accused.
19. It appears that the prosecution so
as to lend support to the prosecution case
also examined Sanjeev [PW-5] and Nivrutti
[PW-6] as eye witnesses. The trial Court did
not believe their evidence for three reasons;
firstly, there was delay in recording their
statements by the Police. Secondly, Vijay
[PW-4] did not mention in the FIR that Sanjay
and Nivrutti were present at the spot of
incident, and all of them took Suresh to the
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
Police Station and thereafter to the
Hospital. Thirdly, though those witnesses
stated to have accompanied the injured Suresh
to Shani Peth Police Station and Civil
Hospital and though they have stated to have
narrated the incident at the Police Station,
when they have carried the injured Suresh to
the Police Station, the statements of these
witnesses were not promptly recorded by the
Investigating Officer, and another reason
given by the trial Court is that though the
incident had taken place near the railway
line at Chaugule Plot as stated by the Panch
witness to the spot panchnama. However,
Sanjay [PW-5] stated in his evidence that the
incident had taken place nearby the house of
Meerabai Patil, though panch witness stated
that the house of Meerabai Patil is about 100
to 150 feet. It is not necessary to go into
the details of the evidence of Sanjeev [PW-5]
and Nivrutti [PW-6]. However, it has come in
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
the evidence of the panch witness, Anil Gavli
[PW-1], that the house of Sanjay [PW-5] and
Nivrutti Koli [PW-6] are in the same locality
where the incident had taken place and where
PW-1 resides. Therefore, the prosecution has
brought on record that Sanjay [PW-5] and
Nivrutti [PW-6] are residing in the same
locality where the incident had taken place.
Therefore, their presence nearby the spot was
natural. It has already come on record the
time of incident was in between 8.30 to 8.45
p.m. and therefore the presence of Sanjay
[PW-5] and Nivrutti [PW-6] in the said
locality was but natural. It has come on
record in the deposition of Sanjay [PW-5],
that at the relevant time they were about 20
feet away from the spot of incident. It is
true that during cross examination of Sanjay
[PW-5], it is brought on record that he was
on inimical term with one of the accused.
However, as already observed, their presence
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
in the locality where the incident had taken
place was natural. It is true that their
names have not been mentioned in the FIR. It
further appears from the evidence of
Investigating Officer that the statements of
Sanjay [PW-5] and Nivrutti [PW-6] were
recorded by Mr.Ramakant Jawale [PW-8] on 28th
April, 1998 at about 1.00 a.m. Therefore, it
appears that their statements were recorded
within 5 hours from the date of incident. It
appears that Sanjay [PW-5] stated in his
evidence about the incident and the manner in
which the incident had taken place. Nivrutti
[PW-6] was declared hostile, however, during
his cross examination, it is brought on
record by the prosecution that he himself,
Anil and Sanjeev were standing at a distance
of about 20 feet from Manoj and Punam at the
time of incident. There was scuffle between
Suresh and Manoj.
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
20. Be that as it may, as already
observed, even if the evidence of Sanjay
[PW-5] and Nivrutti [PW-6] is excluded from
consideration, still the prosecution has
proved from the evidence of Vijay [PW-4] and
the medical evidence that, the respondents -
accused have committed murder of Suresh by
inflicting injuries by sharp weapon. When
there is ocular evidence which gets
corroboration from the medical evidence in
material particular, in that case even if
other evidence brought on record by the
prosecution is kept out of consideration, the
accused can be convicted. Even the spot of
incident stated by Vijay [PW-4] is near the
Chaugule Plot, and therefore, there is no any
material discrepancy as such, there may be
variance in telling the exact distance from
the spot of incident and the house of Meera
Patil, but such type of little variance could
not affect upon the core of prosecution case.
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
21. So far the evidence of Nivrutti
[PW-6] is concerned, who turned hostile, the
law is well settled that the evidentiary
value of such hostile witness cannot be
totally wiped out as part of the statement
can be taken into consideration, which
supports the prosecution case. The Supreme
Court in the cases of Govindaraju alias
Govinda Vs. State by Sriramapuram Police
Station and another1, Rohtash Kumar Vs. State
of Haryana 2 held that the evidence of a
prosecution witness cannot be rejected in
toto merely because prosecution chose to
treat him as hostile and cross-examined him.
The law permits the court to take into
consideration the deposition of a hostile
witness, to the extent that same is in
consonance with prosecution case and is found
to be reliable upon careful judicial
scrutiny. The Supreme Court in the case of
1 [2012] 4 SCC 722
2 [2013] 14 SCC 434
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh and others
Vs. State of Haryana3 in para 36 observed
that, the evidence of the stamped witness
must be given due weightage as his presence
on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted.
His statement is generally considered to be
very reliable and it is unlikely that he has
spared the actual assailant in order to
falsely implicate someone else. The testimony
of an injured witness has its own relevancy
and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at
the time and place of occurrence and this
lends support to his testimony that he was
present at the time of occurrence. Thus, the
testimony of an injured witness is accorded a
special status in law. Such a witness comes
with a built-in guarantee of his presence at
the scene of the crime and is unlikely to
spare his actual assailant (s) in order to
falsely implicate someone. "Convincing
evidence is required to discredit an injured
3 [2011] 7 SCC 421
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
witness." Thus, the evidence of an injured
witness should be relied upon unless there
are grounds for the rejection of his evidence
on the basis of major contradictions and
discrepancies therein. [Vide Abdul Sayeed Vs.
State of M.P.4, Kailas Vs. State of
Maharashtra5, Durbal Vs. State of U.P.6 and
State of U.P. V. Naresh7].
22. In the light of discussion in the
foregoing paragraphs, we are of the
considered view that the view taken by the
trial Court to acquit the respondents-
accused was not possible view; on the basis
of the evidence brought on record only
possible view is the conviction of the
respondents-accused for the offence
punishable under Section 302, 324 r/w. 34 of
the IPC. Therefore, they are liable to be
4 [2010] 10 SCC 259
5 [2011] 1 SCC 793
6 [2011] 2 SCC 676
7 [2011] 4 SCC 324
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
convicted for the said offences by allowing
appeal. In the result, we pass following
order:
ORDER
i] The appeal is allowed.
ii] The impugned judgment and order
dated 29th January, 2000 passed by
the Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in
Sessions Case No.141/1998 stands
quashed and set aside. The
respondents-accused nos.1 and 2 are
convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302 and 324 r/w.34 of
the Indian Penal Code, and each is
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for
life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-,
in default to pay fine sentenced to
suffer simple imprisonment for three
months for the offence punishable
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
under Section 302 r/w.34 of the IPC,
and further sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for one year
and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in
default to pay fine sentenced to
suffer simple imprisonment for three
months for the offence punishable
under Section 324 r/w.34 of the IPC.
Both the substantive sentences as
above against respondents-accused
nos.1 and 2 to run concurrently.
iii] The respondents-accused nos.1 and 2
to surrender their bail bonds. They
should appear before the Sessions
Judge, Jalgaon, forthwith to undergo
the sentence. The Sessions Judge,
Jalgaon, to take steps through the
Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon,
to take them in custody forthwith
without delay to undergo sentence
imposed on them.
188.2000 Cri.Appeal.odt
iv] The respondents-accused be given set
off under Section 428 of the
Criminal Procedure Code.
v] The order regarding disposal of
muddemal property as per the
impugned judgment and order to take
effect after period of appeal is
over.
[S.M.GAVHANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
