RAJHANS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No.942 of 2015 has been filed under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the original accused persons challenging their conviction by learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.96 of 2013 on 5/12/2015 after holding them guilty of committing offence punishable under Ss. 302 , 120-B, 114 of Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced thus :-

(2.) Criminal Revision Application No.53 of 2023 has been filed by the original informant - victim under Sec. 401 read with Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It will not be out of place to mention here that originally it was Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2016 filed by him under Sec. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Amendment has been made in the prayer clause as well as title by order dtd. 13/2/2023. By this amendment, the prayer for setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting accused No.3 from the offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34, 118 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 4 punishable under Sec. 25 of Arms Act was deleted and the revision was then restricted for the enhancement in punishment of accused Nos.1 to 3 of imprisonment for life to death penalty.

(3.) The matter was thoroughly heard and was reserved for judgment, however, when it was noticed at the time of writing the judgment that in the meantime i.e. during the period of matter reserved for judgment, certain judgments have come up of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and which require certain acts or things to be got done by this Court, we would like to rely on the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikas Chaudhary Vs. State of Delhi, [2023 DGLS (SC) 450] : 2023 (4) JT 517] delivered on 21/4/2023, in which the observations are that even the informant/aggrieved party can also maintain the appeal under Sec. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Here, in fact, on 13/2/2023, a statement was made on behalf of the informant/revision petitioner that the revision is not maintainable under Sec. 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but when the Hon'ble Supreme Court is making different observations, then those observations are required to be considered. In Vikas Chaudhary (Supra), reliance has been placed on the Three Judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manoj and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2023 (2) SCC 353] and, therefore, it is imperative on this Court to call the material as per the directions given in terms of Manoj (Supra) for evaluation. It is submitted that in the event if death sentence is not imposed, then it is open to the prosecution/State or even the informant to pray for fixed term sentence and taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, in that event also, it has been held in Vikas Chaudhary (Supra) that the evaluation in terms of Manoj (Supra) is necessary.