YOGESH BALASAHEB INGALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/original accused Nos. 1 and 2 have filed this Appeal against the Judgment and order dated 3rd December, 2007 passed by the learned I Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 240 of 2001. By the said Judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 364-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). For the said offence, he sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to suffer R.I. for one month. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:-

(2.) Both the appellants came to be arrested on the very same day. Thereafter, test identification parade was held. In the said test identification parade, the victim boy PW-22 Nilesh identified both the appellants as the persons who took him from the school and kept him in one room. The appellant No. 1 has been identified by PW-23 Mrs. Joshi, the Principal of the School as the man who had approached her telling her that he had come to take away the boy, namely, Babalu. Then she sent Nilesh with the man i.e. appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 1 took Nilesh on his motor cycle. Besides the victim PW-22 Nilesh, and P.W. 23 the Principal Mrs. Joshi, PW-21 Ranjit who was a student in the school has also identified appellant No. 1 in the test identification parade. He identified the appellant No. 1 as the man who came to the school at about 12.30 p.m. and took away the boy with him on a Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing registration No. MH-09-V-5655. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

(3.) Charge came to be framed against both the appellants under Section 364A read with Section 34 of IPC or in the alternative under Section 364A simplicitor, under Section 417 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and under Section 419 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the said charges 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.