CHINTAMANI BALARAM KADAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 374 of 2005 has been filed by original accused Nos. 1 and 3, while Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2005 has been filed by original accused No. 2 and Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2005 has been filed by original accused No. 4. The appellants, being aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Brihan Mumbai dated 19/10/2004, in Sessions Case No. 442 of 2003, convicting original accused Nos. 1 and 3 for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default to undergo RI for one year and for offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, however, no separate sentence is passed, and convicting original accused Nos. 2 and 4 for offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and sentencing them to RI for three years and to each pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of which to undergo RI for one month, by these appeals question the correctness of their conviction and sentence. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus:--

(2.) Further to the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet against the appellants came to be filed. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, trial court vide Exh. 2 framed charge against the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellants denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined 12 witnesses. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of PW3 -Tanvir, who is an injured eye witness to the incident. PW 4 - Sandeep, PW 5 - Kamlesh who were eye witnesses to the incident did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile. Similarly, PW 6 - Pravin also did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile.

(3.) In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.