(1.) This appeal is directed against the appellant's conviction for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act (for short, "the BP Act") and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs. 500/- on the second count inflicted upon the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik on conclusion of Sessions Case No. 1 of 1993 before him. Facts which led to prosecution of the appellant and the material for deciding this appeal are as under:
(2.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was made over, charged the appellant of offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, Section 66(1)(b) of the BP Act and Section 135 r/w Section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act for breach of prohibitory orders. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all eight witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellant. The appellant took a defence of denial and also took a vacillating defence of having been at Malegaon on the incidental day, which he could not prove. After considering the prosecution evidence in the light of the defence of denial, the learned Judge held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-I) of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment and to pay fine, as indicated above. He also convicted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 66(1)(b) of the BP Act but acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (for short, "APP") for the State. With the help of both, I have gone through the evidence on record.