CHANDRAKANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/original accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 have preferred this appeal to challenge the Judgment and conviction order passed against them by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.246 of 2011. The appellants were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 14,, 14,, 302, 324, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC). The appellants are held guilty under Section 302 read with Section 14, of the IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fne of Rs.3,000/- each, in default of payment of fne, they are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. They are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 14, of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fne of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fne they are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellants are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 14, of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fne of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fne they are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The above conviction order is under challenge.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the prosecution against the appellants can be summarised as under:-

(3.) Heard learned counsel on behalf of the appellants. He submits that a day before the incident, there was heavy rain. There was no electricity in the vicinity at the time of incident. There was enmity between appellant No.1 and family members of the deceased/Aruna. Deceased/Aruna had enmity with many persons. The villagers were annoyed with her, hence, she must have been killed by unknown persons. But due to enmity, the appellants have been implicated. It is also submitted that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are on inimical terms with the appellants and they are interested in getting conviction of appellants. The evidence of the said witnesses is not properly evaluated by the learned trial Court, therefore, the fndings of the learned trial Court are not legal and proper. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence imposed on the appellants be quashed and set aside and they may be acquitted.