SATISH VASANT HOLKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is being re-heard by us, pursuant to the order dated 19th February, 2013, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal no.787 of 2008. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 19th February, 2013 in Criminal Appeal no.787 of 2008 was pleased to set aside the Judgment dated 20th December, 2006 passed by this Court and while remitting the matter back requested this Court to appoint an amicus curiae to argue the aforesaid appeal on behalf of the appellants and to re-hear the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

(2.) Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be useful to place on record the manner in which the said case has travelled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and now back to this Court for re-hearing of the aforesaid Appeal, preferred by the appellants.

(3.) The aforesaid appellants-Satish and Nandu along with seven co-accused were arrested in connection with an alleged incident of assault on 28/29th April, 1997 at 12.30 a.m. According to the prosecution, deceased Arun, Sanju (PW.1), Anil (PW.3) and Kailash were assaulted by all the 9 accused. All the accused, including the appellants-Satish and Nandu came to be charged for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative for the offence punishable under Section 302 simplicitor or Section 302 r/w 34 for causing the death of Arun and for the offence punishable under Section 323 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative Section 323 simplicitor or Section 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting Sanju, Anil and Kailash. The appellants-Satish and Nandu along with seven accused were also charged for the offence punishable under Section 504 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative for the offence punishable under Section 504 simplicitor or Section 504 /w 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case no.299 of 1997, vide Exhibit-7.