RAMCHANDRA ISHWAR SURWASE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/original accused No. 1, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 302 r/w 34, 324 r/w 34 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to each pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of which to undergo RI for three months and RI for two years and to each pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which to undergo RI for one month, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, by the 1 Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pandhapur, Dist. Solapur, by judgment dated 15/09/2004 in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2003, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. This appeal had originally been filed by appellant Nos. 1 and 2 who were the accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the trial Court. The Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 10/10/2012 in Criminal Application No. 1224 of 2012 allowed the aforesaid Criminal Application and while confirming the conviction of appellant No. 2-Dhanaji Ramchandra Surwase, quashed the substantive sentence of imprisonment and upheld his plea that he was a juvenile in conflict with law. This Court by the aforesaid judgment also directed that the appellant No. 2 be set at liberty forthwith unless he was required in connection with the other cases. The Division Bench further directed that the Criminal Appeal would proceed as against appellant No. 1/original accused No. 1. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, therefore, this appeal is restricted to the challenge to the conviction and sentence on behalf of appellant No. 1/original accused No. 1.

(2.) Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this Appeal may briefly be stated thus:--

(3.) On committal of the case to Court of Sessions, trial Court vide Exh. 27 framed charge against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 341 read with 34 of I.P.C. The accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined 12 witnesses. The defence of the appellant/accused was of denial. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as afore-stated.