RUDHIRKUMAR KASHINATH PANDA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 979 of 2007 has been preferred by the original accused No. 1 Sunil Kavichandra Rana and Criminal Appeal No. 656 of 2007 has been preferred by original accused no. 2 Rudhirkumar Kashinath Panda. For the convenience, the appellants shall be referred to as they were referred to before the trial Court i.e. appellant Sunil Rana will be referred to as accused no. 1 and appellant Rudhirkumar Panda will be referred to as accused no. 2. Both the appeals are directed against the very same judgment and order dated 4.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 414 of 2004 and Sessions Case No. 992 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Judge convicted the accused nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 302, 392 and 394 all read with Section 120-B of IPC. For the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC, each of them is sentenced to life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each i/d RI for three months. For the offence under Section 392 read with Section 120-B of IPC, each of them is sentenced to RI for seven years and fine of Rs. 2000/- each i/d RI for one month. For the offence under Section 394 read with Section 120-B of IPC, each of them is sentenced to RI for seven years and a fine of Rs. 3000/- each i/d RI for two months. The learned Judge directed that all the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. As both the appeals have been preferred against the very same judgment and order, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under:

(2.) Charge came to be framed against accused nos. 1 and 2 under sections 392 r.w. 120-B, 394 r.w. 120-B. 302 r.w. 120-B and 394 simplicitor of IPC. The charge also came to be framed against original accused nos. 3 and 4 under Section 414 of IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Judge acquitted original accused no. 4 of the offence with which he was charged and convicted the original accused No. 3 only under Section 414 of IPC. The learned Judge convicted and sentenced the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 as stated in para 1 above. Hence, these appeals.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Judge and the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused.