SUNIL NIRMAL BISTH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this appeal, the appellant/original accused has challenged the judgment and order dated 24th & 30th November, 1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 1267 of 1996. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under section 449 of I.P.C. as also under section 392 read with 397 of I.P.C and section 302 of I.P.C. For the offence under section 449 of I.P.C, the appellant came to be sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year. For the offence under section 392 read with section 397 of IPC, the appellant came to be sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to suffer imprisonment for one year and for an offence under section 302 of IPC, the appellant came to be sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ - in default to suffer imprisonment for one year. Learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that all the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under :

(3.) Charge came to be framed against the appellant under sections 449,302,392 read with section 397 of I.P.C. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant is that of total denial. After going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para 1 above. Hence, this appeal.