PAPPU Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appellants have been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2013 of Sessions Court, Nagpur. They were tried by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge 1, Nagpur for the said offence and have been convicted. Third accused Laxminarayan Garuba Suryawanshi, who is original accused No. 1 in the said trial, has also been convicted for the said offence. He has not appealed against the judgment and order of the trial Court. The present appeal is limited to appellant Nos. 1 and 2 before this Court. The whole case mainly depends on the evidence of P.W.1, who was injured in the incident. Learned Counsel Shri R.M. Daga, during the course of arguments, has submitted that there are vital omissions in the earlier statement recorded by the police with respect to the role of the appellants. At the same time, learned Counsel Shri R.M. Daga has further submitted that if this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence and increase fine amount, the appellants may not press for acquittal and will be satisfied with the judgment of the Court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri A.K. Bangadkar has strongly opposed the suggestion made by learned Counsel Shri R.M. Daga.

(2.) I have gone through the evidence of P.W.1. Without going into the substance of argument of learned Counsel Shri R.M. Daga to the effect that there are vital omissions in the earlier two statements of P.W. 1 recorded by the police, what can be seen is that the appellants are not hardened criminals. There is no previous criminal record of the appellants. The incident had occurred due to minor quarrel. Therefore, this Court is inclined to consider the prayer made by learned Counsel Shri R.M. Daga for reduction of sentence. The Court has also taken a note of the fact that the sharp weapon, by which injuries were caused to P.W.1, was used by accused No. 1 and not by the present appellants, who are original accused Nos. 2 and 3. Taking into consideration the alleged role of the appellants and their clean previous record, I am of the view that substantive sentence of eighteen months and fine of rupees ten thousand each will serve the ends of justice. Hence, I pass the following order.