RAJENDRA NARSAYYA DANDROPALLI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2007 has been preferred by the appellant i.e. original accused No. 5 Rajendra Dandropalli and Criminal Appeal No. 883 of 2007 has been preferred by the appellant i.e. original accused No. 2 Ramesh Pandori. Both the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 28.08.2006 passed by the learned 12th Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Sewree, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 680 of 2003. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both these appellants for the offence under Sections 452, 395 and 396 of IPC. For the offence under Section 396 of IPC, both the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/- IDRI for six months. For the offence under Sections 452 and 395 of IPC, on each count, each of the appellant was sentenced to RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 3000/- IDRI for six months. The learned Sessions Judge directed that all the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. For the sake of convenience, the appellants shall be referred to as they were referred before the trial Court i.e. appellant Ramesh Pandori will be referred as 'accused No. 2' and the appellant Rajendra Dandropalli will be referred as 'accused No. 5'. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:

(2.) Charge came to be framed against the appellant Rajendra i.e. accused No. 5 and the appellant Ramesh i.e. accused No. 2 and 4 other accused under Section 396 of IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. Their defence 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 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 the appellants have murdered Nirmalaben and looted jewellery and cash from the flat.