VITTHAL NARAYAN KANGALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants alongwith three others, had been tried for the murder of Champat Ragho Nehare under section302 read with section149 of the Indian Penal Code. THEy were also tried for attempt to murder Ragho Pandurang Nehare and Pundlik Ragho Nehare under section307 read with section149 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, they were also charged and tried for causing grievous and simple hurt to Lalita Raghoji Nehare and Ku. Sunanda Raghoji Nehare under section326, 324 read with section149 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides this, they were also charged and tried for the offences under sections 147, 148, 458 read with section149 of the Indian Penal Code. THE prosecution had in all examined five witnesses in support of the charges. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal vide Judgment dtd. 12-12-1997 found the appellants guilty of the charge of murder under section302 read with section34 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default 3 months R. I. THE appellants have also been convicted for causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons under section326 read with section34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 6 months R. I. as also a fine of Rs. 200/- in default R. I. for one month. In addition, they have been convicted for voluntarily causing hurt under section324 read with section34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to R. I. for 3 months. Besides this, the appellants have also been convicted for the offence under section458 read with section34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default further R. I. for one month. THE substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. THE other three co-accused were acquitted of all the charges.

(2.) THE appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence for the aforesaid offences by filing this appeal. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and learned A. P. P.

(3.) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants under section302 read with section34 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside but instead their conviction is altered to under section325 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentences under sections 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 458 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code are maintained. Taking an overall view of the matter and the fact that the appellants had also suffered incised injuries in the transaction in respect of which the reports are available on record (appellant no.3 Pandurang had suffered 3 incised injuries as per the report at page no. 291; appellant no.2 Narayan had suffered one incised injury and one contusion as per report at page 296 and appellant no.1 Vitthal had suffered one incised wound as per report at page 298) and that incident took place a decade ago, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met by treating the period already undergone as a sufficient sentence on appellant no.1 Vitthal, appellant no.3 Pandurang and appellant no.4 Deorao. In the case of appellant no.2 Narayan also we find that the period during which he was in custody which is for 6 months be treated as sufficient punishment taking into consideration his age which is 75 years now. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Accordingly, all the appellants are deemed to have undergone sentences imposed on them and they are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other case. Of course, appellant no.2 Narayan is on bail. Bail bonds of appellant no.2 Narayan are cancelled. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Appeal partly allowed. .