MANOJ KUMAR PRADEEP GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 02.03.2007 passed by the 2nd Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Jude, C.R. No. 8, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 344 of 2003 and 264 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted all the appellants under Sections 396, 397 and 449 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced them as follow:-

(2.) Charge came to be framed against all the appellants as well as original accused No. 6 under Sections 120-B of IPC, 449 r/w 120-B and alternatively r/w 34 of IPC, 342 r/w 120-B and alternatively r/w 34 of IPC, 395 r/w 120-B, 472 r/w 120-B and alternatively r/w S. 34 of IPC, 302 r/w 120-B and alternatively r/w 34 of IPC for causing death of Hansaben, Nautambhai, Maruti and Jay. Charge was also framed against all accused under Sections 396 of IPC, 397 of IPC and 135 of Bombay Police Act. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellants is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants along with original accused No. 6 as stated in paragraph 1 above. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and the learned APP for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that no reliable evidence has been brought on record in relation to accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to connect them with the crime.