KAILAS NAMDEO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, dated 24-04-1990 in Sessions case No. 170 of 1987. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the present appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life imprisonment and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The appellants/accused are also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. The accused No. 2 is also found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 392 and 397 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. Similarly, the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 392 and 397 of Indian Penal Code and the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that on 22-12-1986 at about 10.30 p.m., on the foot road towards the field of Rama Chango Bhoir, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the complainant Prakash Gulam Mhatre and his brother Jagan, who were proceeding to their house and the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of Jagan. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused have committed robbery of gold chain belonging to deceased Jagan, and they used deadly weapons at the time of committing the said act of robbery.

(3.) The accused Nos. 1 to 4 as well as the complainant Prakash and his brother Jagan, were residing at Village Pimplas. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the real brothers and accused No. 4 is the uncle of accused Nos. 2 and 3 and accused No. 1 is the son of accused No. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that about 10-15 days prior to the present incident, a bicycle belonging to complainant's family was found to be stolen. The said bicycle was subsequently seen in possession of accused No. 2 by complainant Prakash and deceased Jagan and therefore, altercations had taken place between the complainant, Jagan and accused No. 2. Since then, the relationship between the accused persons with the complainant Prakash and Jagan, became strained.