MANILAL HIRAMAN CHAUDHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Manilal Hiraman Chaudhari is before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 17.10.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench at Aurangabad.

(2.) At the trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. Lotu Eco Patil (PW-4) and Govinda Shamrao Marathe (PW-5) were examined as eye- witnesses to the occurrence.

(3.) We have noticed hereinbefore that PW-4 was the informant. PW-5 was the driver of the Maruti van, which was taken on hire by the accused persons. They had gone to Onkareshwar and Saptashringi Gad in the District of Nasik. The learned Trial Judge upon considering the evidence brought on record convicted all the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment in the criminal appeal filed by the accused persons, however, set aside the conviction and sentence of Accused No.1. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were also convicted under Section 341 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused No. 2 was further convicted under Section 506 IPC.