Bombay High Court
Shama Bhagwan Waghode And Antoher vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 January, 2018
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
1. Shama Bhagwan Waghode
Age:30 years, Occu.:Labour
2. Vinod Ashok Bhil
Age:26 years, Occu.:Labour,
Both R/o. Piloda, Tq. Yawal,
Dist. Jalgaon ...APPELLANTS
(Ori. Accused)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
through Police Station officer,
Police Station Faizpur, Tq. Yawal
Dist. Jalgaon
...RESPONDENT
...
Shri. Govind Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellants;
Shri. R.B. Bagul and Ms. S.S. Raut, A.P.Ps. for State.
...
CORAM: P.R. BORA, J.
***
Date of reserving the Judgment : 22/12/2017
Date of pronouncing the Judgment :30/01/2018
***
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellants have filed the present appeal against
the judgment and order passed on 4th of February, 2014, by
the Additional Sessions Judge at Jalgaon in Sessions Case
No.165/2010. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the
2 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants
for the offenses punishable under Sections 325 and 451 of
Indian Penal Code. Appellant No.1 Shama has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and
to pay fine of Rs.4,000/-; in default, to suffer simple
imprisonment for two months for the offense punishable under
Section 325 of IPC whereas, for the offense punishable under
Section 451 of the IPC, he has been punished to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-; in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one
month. Appellant no.2 Vinod has been sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of
Rs.4,000/-; in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two
months for the offense punishable under Section 325 of IPC
whereas, for the offense punishable under Section 451 of IPC,
he has also been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default, to undergo
simple imprisonment for one month. The appellants are,
hereinafter, referred to as `accused no.1' and `accused no.2'.
2. Both the accused were prosecuted by Police Station,
Faizpur, district Jalgaon, for the offenses punishable under
Sections 307, 451 and 452 read with Section 34 of IPC. It
3 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
was alleged that on 30th of May, 2010, both the accused, in
furtherance of their common intention, entered into the house
of informant Sakhubai under the influence of liquor at about 8
p.m. and made assaults on informant Sakhubai as well as
Sukhdeo Waghode. It was further the case of the prosecution
that accused no.2 Vinod gave an axe blow on both the hands
and head of Sukhdeo Waghode and also made an assault on the
head of Sakhubai with the same axe and caused severe bodily
injuries to both of them. According to the case of the
prosecution, accused no.1 Shama had made an assault on the
head of informant Sakhubai with the same axe by snatching the
same from the hands of accused no.2 Vinod.
3. Sakhubai Sukhdeo Waghode (PW 3) lodged report
of the alleged incident to Police Station, Faizpur. A report was
taken by the Police persons in the hospital at Bhusawal on 30th
of May, 2010, and the investigation was set in motion.
According to the case of the prosecution, after Sakhubai
Wakhode and Sukhdeo Wakhode were assaulted by the
accused, they were taken to the Government Hospital at
Bhusawal and after some primary treatment was given to
Sakhubai, her statement was recorded by the Police which was
treated as FIR in the matter and the investigation was set in
4 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
motion. During the course of investigation, usual formalities
like visiting the spot of occurrence, preparing spot panchnama,
seizure the incriminating articles from the spot, seizure of
clothes on the person of the victims, making arrests of the
accused, seizure of clothes on their person, obtaining injury
certificates pertaining to the victim, etc. were performed and
the statements of necessary witnesses were also recorded.
After completing the investigation, chargesheet was filed
against both the accused for the offenses punishable under
Sections 307, 451, 452 read with Section 34 of IPC in the Court
of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Yawal.
4. Since the offense under Section 307 of the IPC was
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class at Yawal, vide order passed on
9.11.2010, committed the case to the Sessions Court at Jalgaon
whereupon present sessions case was registered. On 4th of
June, 2011, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the
charge against the accused and recorded their plea. The
accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove the charges levelled against the
accused, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses.
5 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
The prosecution evidence commenced with the testimony of
Jagdish Rupchand Jaware in whose presence panchnama of the
spot was prepared and after the testimony of Goraksh Baban
Palve, the investigating officer, was recorded, the prosecution
evidence was closed. The other witnesses examined by the
prosecution were the victims of the alleged incident, namely,
Sakhubai (PW 3), Sukhdeo (PW 6), the alleged eye witnesses,
namely, Kamal Waghode (PW 4), Kedar More (PW 5). The
Medical Officer, namely, Rameshchandra Sawkare (PW 7) in
whose evidence the injury certificates pertaining to Sakhubai
(P:W 3) and Sukhdeo (PW 6) were proved. The accused have
denied the case of the prosecution in toto and it was their
defense that they were falsely implicated because of one past
event creating enmity between them and informant Sakhubai
and her husband Sukhdeo.
6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after having
assessed the oral and documentary evidence brought on record
by the prosecution, held both the accused guilty for the offense
punishable under Sections 325 and 451 read with Section 34 of
IPC and sentenced them to suffer punishment as noted
hereinabove. Aggrieved thereby, the accused have preferred
the present appeal.
6 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
7. Shri Govind Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the
appellants - accused, assailed the impugned judgment and
order on various grounds. Learned Counsel submitted that
the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed in not
considering that the witnesses examined by the prosecution
were the close relatives of PW 3 Sakhubai and PW 6 Sukhdeo
and, as such, their evidence could not have been implicitly
relied upon without being corroborated by any independent
witnesses. Learned Counsel further submitted that the
learned Sessions Judge has also failed in taking into account
the inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution witnesses.
Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has utterly failed in relying upon the evidence of
so called recovery which was admittedly made after the period
of more than three weeks of filing of the First Information
Report. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has failed in appreciating that the
statement of PW 6 Sukhdeo was not recorded by the
investigating officer till filing of the chargesheet and his
statement came to be recorded after commencement of the
trial in the matter. According to the learned Counsel, on this
count alone, the evidence of PW 6 Sukhdeo was liable to be
7 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
discarded. Learned Counsel submitted that once the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has reached to the conclusion that
the evidence brought by the prosecution in respect of the
weapon of offenses was not free from doubt, and during whole
of the trial, no such dependable evidence could come on record
to prove the fact that the alleged assaults were made by the
accused with the weapons like axe and stone, the entire
prosecution evidence was liable to be rejected and no
conviction could have been based on such unbelievable
evidence. Learned Counsel submitted that the trial Court also
did not consider the circumstance which has been brought on
record by the accused that prior to few months of the alleged
occurrence, accused no.2 Vinod had filed a complaint against
PW 6 Sukhdeo and that was the reason that a totally false case
was filed implicating accused therein. Learned Counsel,
therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and
order and, consequently, to acquit both the accused from the
charges levelled against them. In the alternative, it was
submitted that if this Court reaches to the conclusion that the
conviction of the accused by the trial Court for the offenses
under Sections 325 and 451 of IPC does not call for any
interference, considering the other circumstances brought on
record by the accused, the sentence imposed upon the accused
8 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
by the trial Court be modified and the accused be released on
the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them.
8. Learned A.P.P. opposed the submissions so made on
behalf of the appellants accused. He supported the impugned
judgment and order. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed a well reasoned
order and while imposing the punishment has also taken into
consideration all relevant aspects and as such, no interference
is warranted in the impugned judgment and order. Learned
A.P.P., therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
9. After having considered the submissions made by
the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, and on perusal of
the impugned judgment and the evidence on record, apparently
it does not appear that the learned Additional Sessions Judge
has committed any error in holding the accused guilty for the
offenses punishable under Sections 325 and 451 of IPC.
10. I have carefully perused the evidence of PW 3
Sakhubai and PW 6 Sukhdeo who are the victims of the alleged
incident. I do not find any inconsistency in the material facts
stated by both these witnesses in their respective testimonies.
9 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
Though an attempt was made by the learned Counsel for the
accused to show some inconsistencies in the evidence of these
witnesses, the inconsistencies attempted to be shown are
immaterial and insignificant. In so far as core incident of
making assaults by the accused on Sakhubai and Sukhdeo is
concerned, PW 3 and PW 6 have duly corroborated the facts
pertaining to the said incident. Learned additional Sessions
Judge has, therefore, rightly relied upon the oral evidence of
both these witnesses. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has
discussed the oral evidence of PW 3 Sakhubai in paragraph
no.11 of the impugned judgment. Reproducing the facts as
were deposed by PW 3 in her testimony before the Court and
comparing the said facts with the facts as were stated by said
Sakhubai in her report at Exh.34, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge has recorded a clear finding that the entire
testimony of PW 3 Sakhubai is corroborated by her report at
Exh.34.
11. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has then
observed that PW 3 Sakhubai is an illiterate and rustic lady who
was admitted in injured condition in the hospital whereas her
husband had sustained severe head injury and was admitted in
the hospital in unconscious condition. Learned Additional
10 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
Sessions Judge has further observed that in the aforesaid
circumstance, there was least possibility of said Sakhubai
lodging any false or manipulated complaint. Nothing has been
brought to my notice by the learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant accused so as to record any contrary finding than the
one recorded by the learned trial Court in so far as reliability of
the evidence of PW 3 is concerned.
12. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph
nos. 12, 13 and 14 of the impugned Judgment has dealt with
the evidence of PW 4 Kamal, who happens to be the daughter
in law of PW 3 Sakhubai and PW 5 Kedar, who is the grand son
of PW 3 Sakhubai and PW 6 Sukhdeo. It was vehemently
argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the accused that
no reliance was liable to be placed on the evidence of PW 4
Kamal and PW 5 Kedar since they happened to be the close
relatives of PW 3 and PW 6 and further that their evidence was
not consistent with the other prosecution material. In the light
of the submissions so made, when I perused the evidence of
both these witnesses and the discussion made by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge in regard to the said evidence, it is
noticed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not
relied upon the evidence of PW 4 Kamal. The evidence on
11 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
record, however, shows that PW 5 Kedar, at the relevant time,
was taking meal along with his grand father and has eye
witnessed the accused making assaults on his grand father
Sukhdeo as well as on his grand mother Sakhubai. Though
there are certain omissions in the evidence of PW 5 Kedar also,
I do agree with the observation made by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge that the omissions so brought on record were
insignificant and immaterial. After having carefully perused
the evidence of PW 5, it does not appear to me that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has committed any error in recording
a finding that the evidence of PW 5 Kedar as an eye witness
was consistent and corroborated the testimony of PW 3
Sakhubai in regard to criminal trespass and the assaults made
by the accused.
13. More thrust of the learned Counsel for the accused
was on the point that the learned Additional Sessions Judge
could not have relied upon the evidence of PW 6 Sukhdeo. It
was contended by the learned Counsel that the statement of
said Sukhdeo was admittedly not recorded till filing of the
chargesheet and the same came to be recorded only after
commencement of the trial. It was submitted by the learned
Counsel that the statement of PW 6 Sukhdeo was recorded by
12 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
the Police in a manner to suit the prosecution case already
submitted. It was also contended by the learned Counsel that
the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also failed in
appreciating the ratio laid down in the case of Sheo Shankar
Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another ( (2011) 3 SCC 654).
After having gone through the entire material on record, I do
not find any substance in the argument so made. The learned
Additional Sessions Judge has perfectly appreciated the law laid
down in the case of Sheo Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
and Another (cited supra). There was ample evidence on
record and more particularly, the medical evidence to show that
PW 6 Sukhdeo was injured in the alleged assault. PW 6
Sukhdeo was immediately removed to the hospital and as has
been proved from the material on record, he was in
unconscious state at the relevant time. The medical evidence
has fully established that Sukhdeo was an indoor patient for
long time. There is further ample evidence on record to show
that Sukhdeo had suffered grave injuries. Moreover, from the
testimony of PW 3 and PW 5 Kedar, who had eye witnessed the
said incident, it was fully established that PW 6 Sukhdeo was
assaulted by accused no.1 Vinod with an axe. Having regard
to the evidence as aforesaid, as has been observed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, no much weightage was
13 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
liable to be attached to the lapses on the part of the
investigation officer in committing delay in recording the
statement of PW 6.
14. Further, as has been observed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, PW 6 Sukhdeo did not depose
anything about the assault made on his wife Sakhubai which
indicates that after he became unconscious, he could not see
further events. As has been observed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, the conduct of PW 6 in stating the
facts in regard to the assault suffered by him but not stating
anything as about the assault on PW 3 Sakhubai, which he had
not seen, indicates that he did not improve his version or did
not attempt to tell the facts which were not within his
knowledge, meaning thereby that he was a fully believable
witness.
15. It has to be further stated that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has preferred not to rely upon the
evidence as about the recovery of the weapon allegedly used in
commission of the crime. It is further noticed that in absence
of any unimpeachable evidence, proving the fact that the
alleged assaults on PW 3 and PW 6 were made by the accused
14 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
with the aid of an axe, though there was medical evidence on
record suggesting of the use of weapon like axe in making
assaults on the victims, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
has not held the accused guilty for causing grievous hurt to the
accused with the aid of dangerous weapons and instead has
held them guilty for the offense under Section 325 of IPC. It
has to be further taken note of that though according to the
prosecution the assaults made by the accused persons on PW 3
Sakhubai and specially on PW 6 Sukhdeo was an attempt to
cause his murder, in absence of any cogent or sufficient
evidence in that regard, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
has declined to hold the accused guilty for the offense
punishable under Section 307 of IPC and as stated hereinabove,
in absence of any cogent and sufficient evidence as about the
weapon used in the offense by the accused, has ultimately held
them guilty for the offense punishable under Section 325 and
451 of IPC.
16. After having considered the entire evidence on
record, it does not appear to me that any error has been
committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in holding
the appellants guilty for the offenses punishable under Sections
325 and 451 of the IPC. I do not find substance in the
15 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
objections raised on behalf of the appellants accused in so far
as the finding as aforesaid is concerned. Thus, no case is
made out by the appellants accused for causing interference in
the finding so recorded by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge holding the appellants accused guilty for the offense
punishable under Section 325 and 451 of the IPC.
17. The next question which falls for my consideration is
whether the alternative prayer made on behalf of the accused
to reduce the punishment and release the appellants accused
on the sentence of imprisonment already undergone, deserves
any consideration. Learned Counsel for the appellants /
accused brought to my notice that both the accused were
arrested on 30th of May, 2010. Accused no.1 Shama was
released by the Sessions Court vide order passed on 3rd of
July, 2010 whereas accused no.2 Vinod was released on bail
vide order passed by the Sessions Court on 25th of June, 2010.
Learned Counsel further submitted that during the course of the
trial, accused no.1 was taken in custody on 31.10.2013 and
remained in custody till 4th of February, 2014, i.e. till the date
of pronouncement of the judgment and order in
the Sessions case. Learned Counsel further submitted that
after conclusion of trial and pronouncement of the judgment,
16 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
the learned Additional Sessions Judge released both the
applicants on bail and suspended the execution of the sentence
imposed upon them for a period of 30 days so as to enable
them to prefer appeal before this Court. Learned Counsel
submitted that both the appellants were released on bail by this
Court vide order passed on 25th of March, 2014. Learned
Counsel further submitted that as accused appellants did not
remain present on the date of hearing, this Court had issued
non bailable warrant against them and both the accused were
taken in custody in execution of the said warrants on 24th of
March, 2017. Learned Counsel submitted that since then the
appellants accused are in jail. Learned Counsel submitted that
accused no.1 has thus undergone the imprisonment for a period
of about 15 months whereas accused no.2 has undergone the
imprisonment for a period of about 12 months. Learned
Counsel further submitted that both the accused are of young
age and both of them have family responsibilities upon them.
Learned Counsel prayed that considering the circumstance both
the accused be released on the sentence of imprisonment
already undergone.
18. Learned A.P.P. opposed for showing any
leniency to the accused stating that the learned Additional
17 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
Sessions Judge has already considered the contentions raised
by the accused before awarding them the punishment and has
already shown leniency by awarding two years' rigorous
imprisonment for accused no.1 and three years' rigorous
imprisonment for accused no.2; whereas, the maximum
sentence provided for the offense punishable under Section 325
of IPC is seven years.
19. There is no straight jacket formula for sentencing
an accused on proof of crime. The Courts have, however,
evolved certain principles: twin objectives of the sentencing
policy are deterrence and correction. What sentence would
meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case and the Court must keep in mind
the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the
offense and all other attendant circumstances.
20. In the instant matter, both the accused are closely
related to the victims, namely, Sakhubai and Sukhdeo.
Accused No.1 Shama is the son of real brother of Sukhdeo,
namely, Bhagwan whereas accused no.2 Vinod is the nephew of
Bhagwan. It is not in dispute that at the time of alleged
occurrence, the age of accused no.1 Shama was 30 years and
18 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
the age of Vinod was 26 years. As has been noted by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, both the accused are
married and are having children in the age group of 8 to 10 as
well as the old parents. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has
also observed that the prosecution has not brought on record
any criminal antecedents of the accused. As has come on
record, few days prior to the alleged occurrence, there was a
quarrel between accused no.1 Shama and his father Bhagwan.
Sukhdeo i.e. the victim in the present case had intervened in
the said quarrel. Accused no.1 Shama was annoyed with the
intervention so made by Sukhdeo and, according to the case of
the prosecution, that was the only reason that on the date of
occurrence accused no.1 Shama, accompanied by accused No.2
Vinod, had been to the hut of Sukhdeo. It has also come on
record that accused no.1 Shama at the relevant time was
under influence of liquor. Though it was the case of the
prosecution that accused no.2 Vinod made an assault on
Sukhdeo, PW 6, with an axe and accused no.1 Shama did also
assault on Sakhubai, it has failed in bringing on record any
unimpeachable evidence to prove the weapon of assault. In
the circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has
held both the accused guilty for the offense punishable under
Section 325 of IPC though they were charged for the offense
19 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
punishable under Section 307 of IPC. It is further revealed
that considering the role played by accused no.1 Shama and
accused no.2 Vinod in occurrence of the alleged crime, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge has imposed punishment of
two years rigorous imprisonment upon accused no.1 Shama
whereas some higher punishment to accused no.2 Vinod i.e. of
three years rigorous imprisonment. As has been submitted by
learned Counsel for the accused, accused no.1 Shama has
already undergone punishment of around fifteen months
whereas accused no.2 has undergone the imprisonment for a
period of about one year. As noted earlier, there are no
criminal antecedents to the accused. Admittedly, both the
accused are of young age. Both have the responsibilities of
their families. Both have children. Accused no.2 Vinod is
having an old mother. Both the accused have already suffered
the trial for a period of four years and, thereafter, the
proceedings before this Court for a period of more than three
years. Admittedly, the quarrel which had occurred between
the accused and the victims was for some trifle reason. The
crime which had occurred at the hands of the accused cannot
be termed as heinous. From the evidence on record no such
inference can also be drawn that it was a pre-arranged, pre-
meditated and determined assault on the victims with an
20 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
intention to finish them. Although victim Sukhdeo had
received certain injuries, only one injury has attracted Section
325 of IPC. The injury which was received to PW 3 Sakhubai
was admittedly simple. As has been argued by the learned
Counsel for the accused, after the alleged occurrence, no
untoward incident had ever occurred between the parties during
the interregnum though both the accused were on bail. Both
the accused have already suffered rigour of imprisonment for a
period of more than one year.
21. Considering the nature and manner of the offense
allegedly committed by the accused, considering the age of the
accused and the family responsibilities upon them and having
regard to the strata of the society to which they belong, it
appears to me that the prayer made by the learned Counsel
appearing for the accused to reduce the period of sentence
imposed upon the accused deserves to be positively considered.
The maximum sentence imposed upon accused no.1 Shama is
of the period of two years of which he has already undergone
imprisonment of fifteen months. I, therefore, do not see any
difficulty in releasing accused no.1 on the sentence of
imprisonment already undergone. However, having regard to
the sentence of three years imprisonment awarded to accused
21 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
no.2 Vinod as against which he has undergone the
imprisonment of twelve months, it appears to me that if
accused no.2 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
eighteen months that will be an adequate punishment for him.
While reducing the period of sentence awarded to the accused
persons, I find it appropriate to strike balance by increasing the
amount of fine. I reiterate that the accused are not the
habitual offenders. Since the crime committed by the accused
cannot be termed as a heinous crime and they are not involved
in any anti social activity, prolonged confinement may not be
required in the instant case. In the foregoing circumstances
and for the reasons stated above, following order is passed:
ORDER
1. Conviction of accused no.1 Shama Bhagwan
Waghode and accused No.2 Vinod Ashok Bhil for the offenses
punishable under Sections 325 and 451 of the IPC and the
sentence awarded to them for the offense punishable under
Section 451 of IPC is maintained.
2. The sentence awarded to accused no.1 Shama for
the offense punishable under Section 325 of IPC to suffer
22 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of
Rs.4,000/- is modified as under:
Accused no.1 Shama Bhagwan Waghode is sentenced for
the offense punishable under Section 325 of IPC to the period
of imprisonment already undergone by him and to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand); in default, to suffer simple
imprisonment for two months.
3. Sentence imposed upon accused no.2 Vinod Ashok
Bhil for the offense punishable under Section 325 of IPC is
modified as under:
Accused No.2 Vinod Ashok Bhil is sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months and to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand); in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for two months.
4. The sentences imposed upon the accused for the
offenses punishable under Section 451 of IPC and under Section
325 of IPC shall run concurrently.
5. The period of imprisonment undergone by the
accused shall be set off against the terms of imprisonment
imposed upon them.
23 CRI.APPEAL NO.166 OF 2014
6. Accused No.1 Shama Bhagwan Waghode shall be
released forthwith, if not required in any other crime.
7. Both the accused have already deposited the fine
amount of Rs.5,000/- ( Rs. five thousand), each. If the
accused deposits the remaining amount of fine, Rs.20,000/-(Rs.
twenty thousand) out of the same be jointly paid to Sukhdeo
Mohan Waghode and Sakhubai Sukhdeo Waghode.
Criminal Appeal (No.166 of 2014) thus stands partly
allowed.
(P.R.BORA)
JUDGE
...
AGP/166-14cr.appeal
