HARESH RAGHAVAN KARKIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 5.4.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda in Sessions Case No.218 of 2000, whereby accused no.4 was held guilty for offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and ordered to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, accused no.4 was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months; for offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC also accused no.4 was convicted and ordered to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. By the impugned judgment, accused no.5 was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 394 and ordered to undergo imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, accused no.5 was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months; for offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC also accused no.5 was held guilty and ordered to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, accused no.4 has preferred Criminal Appeal No.518 of 2002, while Criminal Appeal No.435 of 2002 is preferred by accused no.5.

(2.) The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeal are as under:

(3.) At the time of hearing of these appeals, both learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants fairly conceded that without going into the merits of the matter if the sentence imposed upon the accused nos.4 and 5-present appellants is suitably modified, the accused will be satisfied. Therefore, we have heard both the learned counsel only on the point of quantum of sentence. We have also heard learned APP for the State.