LATA Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Criminal Appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment since identical issues of facts and law are involved therein and both the appeals arise, from a common judgment.

(2.) THE appellant Smt. Lata, widow of Dattu Naik Madgaonkar in Criminal Appeal No. 22/1989 is the mother of the appellant Prashant Dattu Naik in Criminal Appeal No. 30/1989. One Smt. Geeta alias Pranita was the wife of Prashant Dattu Naik, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 30/1989. Smt. Geeta alias Pranit. , Prashant Dattu Naik and his mother Smt. Lata Naik were charged before the Addi. Sessions Judge, South Goa at, Margao, that on 21st day of July, 1988 Accused No. 1 Geeta alias Pranita knowingly committed the offence of robbery and murder of Smt. Satteri alias gokul and thereby committed the offences under Sections 397 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 2 Prashant Dattu Naik and Accused no. 3 Smt. Lata Dattu Naik did cause evidence relating to gold ornaments worn by the said deceased to disappear by concealing them in the wall of their house at Pimpalcotto, Quepem and which ornaments were subsequently buried by accused no. 3 in the hearth (chul) of their house with the intention of screening accused no. 1 from legal punishment and that accused nos. 2 and 3 thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The three accused were further charged that on the same day and place accused no. 1 knowingly committed the offence of robbery and murder of Smt. Satteri alias Gokul under Sections 397 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were cognizant thereof and that accused nos. 2 and 3 intentionally omitted to give information of the said offences which they were legally bound to give, and thereby accused nos. 2 and 3 committed an offence punishable under Section 202 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C.

(3.) THE learned Addi. Sessions Judge, South Goo, at Margao tried the three accused under the charges mentioned theretofore and after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Addi. Sessions Judge was pleased to convict accused no. 1 under Section 302 of the I. P. C. and to sentence her to imprisonment for life. Accused no. 1 was further found guilty under Section 397 of the I. P. C. and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years. Accused no. 2 was convicted under Section 201 of the I. P. C. and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years. Accused no. 2 was also found guilty of an offence under Section 202 of the I. P. C. read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The two sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused No. 3 was found guilty of an offence under Section 201 of I. P. C. and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years. Accused no. 3 was further found guilty of an offence under Section 202 I. P. C. and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.