CHANDRAKANT MAHADU MHATRE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following ten persons ---1) Chandrakant Mahadu Mhatre 2) Bhaskar Mahadu Mhatre 3) Padu Mahadu Mhatre 4) Charpat Shankar Mhatre 5) Kisan Tukaram Mhatre 6) Balkrishna Shaniwar Patil 7) Mohan Shankar Mhatre 8) Dasharath Arjun Patil 9) Gajanan Balkrishna Patil 10) Arun Haridas Patil were placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, to answer common charges under sections 147, 148, 149/302, 149/323 and 149/307 of the Indian Penal Code. Alternative charges were also framed against them under section 302/34, 323/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 separate charges under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 25 (1) (b) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 were also framed. As against accused No. 1 there was an additional charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of the trial the learned Judge, while acquitting accused Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of all the charges framed against them, convicted accused No. 1 under section 302 and the other six under section 149/302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. All of them were also conviced under sections 149/326, though the charge was under sections 149/307, and 149/323, of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years, for the former conviction but no separate sentence was passed for the latter. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were also convicted under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25 (1) (b) of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month and six months respectively. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the above order of conviction and sentence, Kisan Mhatre, the accused No. 5, had filed one of these two appeals (Criminal Appeal No. 1058 of 1988) while the other six have jointly filed Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 1988. As both these appeals stem from the common judgment, they have been heard together and this judgment will dispose of both of them.

(3.) THE case for the prosecution, briefly stated, is as under :---