NAHERSINH GULABSINH PARGHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Sadhana Sagar, learned advocate for appellant Nos. 2 and 3 at length, whereas, Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent -State.

(2.) THIS appeal is preferred by as many as five appellants, who were tried jointly but in separate Sessions Cases, since they could not be arrested at the relevant time so as to tried together for the offences committed by them jointly and in conspiracy with each other under Sections 395, 397, 457 and 114 of the IPC. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were tried in Sessions Case No. 89 of 2006, appellant No. 3 was tried in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2007 and appellant Nos. 4 and 5 were tried in Sessions Case No. 69 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer of 5th FTC at Junagadh. The trial Court has by common impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.2008 for all three sessions cases, convicted all the accused for the above offences and awarded sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/ - and in default of payment of fine 1 year simple imprisonment under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 5 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/ - and in default of payment of fine 1 year simple imprisonment under Section 459 of the Indian Penal Code and 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 250/ - and in default of payment of fine 1 month simple imprisonment under Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. However, such sentence was not to be undergo concurrently and, therefore, practically each accused was awarded with sentence of 15 years and 6 months and out of fine that may be deposited by the accused the trial Court has directed to pay Rs. 50,000/ - to the complainant towards compensation.

(3.) OUT of five appellant - accused, at present only appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are present before the Court through learned advocate Ms. Sadhna Sagar, whereas, appellant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 absconded when they were released on temporary bail. However, when appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are in jail, they have right to press for hearing and decision in the appeal at least so far as their conviction is concerned and, therefore, their learned advocate has requested to separate the Appeal so far as appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned and to decide it on merits since they are in custody for more than 7 years.