SHREENU @ SHRINIUTAS RAJANNA PENDARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals filed by the appellant-accused No. 1 and appellant-accused No. 2 against the common judgment and order passed by the additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, thereby both these accused-appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w section 34 of indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the life. Both these accused have been also convicted for the offence punishable under section 394 of Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. They have been also convicted under section 450 r/w section 34 of Indian penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. All the substantive sentences has been directed to run concurrently. The accused No. 2, shriniwas has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. All these accused have been directed to pay fine and in default to suffer R. I. for six months. All other consequential orders have been passed. Therefore, these appeals only by accused No. l and 2. The accused Nos. 1,2,3, and 4 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 395 of I. P. C. The accused Nos 3 and 4 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 302, 394 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused No. 3 has been acquitted for the offence punishable under section 120b, 450,302,411,394, 395 of the I. P. C. The accused No. l Bhim is acquitted for an offence punishable under Section 411, 414 of I. P. C. Therefore, these two separate appeals by appellant-accused No. 1 bearing No. 920 of 2000 and apellant-accused No. 2 bearing NO. 738/2033. As the impugned judgment and evidence in both these appeals are common and arising out of the same incident we are disposing of these appeals by common judgment.

(2.) The complainant. Dr. Mayank Pandya, p. M. 1 and his wife Parminder Kaur, P. W. 2 have * daughter aged about 11 years and a son aged about 9 years. The deceased mother of the complainant Damyanti was residing in their house at Flat No. l, Aruovilla building on St. Andrew's road at Santascruz (West) , mumbai. As per their normal routine, respective members of the family, except Damyanti, used to leave the house between 7 a. m. tp 7.30 a. m. and return home between 7.30 to 8.30 p. m. The family has engaged a lady cook, who used to visit the house twice, at 11. 00 a. m. and at about 4 p. m. Two months before the date of incident, the family had engaged the accused No. 3 Mohan for domestic work. He used to visit the house at 7. 00 a. m. and after finishing work in half an hour he used to go for other work and return at about 9. 00 a. m. again and was working till 3 p. m. and thereafter again he used to work from 5 p. m. to 7.30 p. m. We was not staying in the house during the night time. The complainant and his family could not ascertain the exact address of the accused No. 3 Mohan.

(3.) In the month of November, 1995s accused No. 3 mohan requested Parminder Kaur, (P. M. 2) wife of the complainants P. M. 1, for 10 day's leave from 1/12/1995, as he Mas required to go to his native place. However, parminder Kaur had insisted for substitute servant. On 29/11/1995, the accused Mohan brought the appellant-accused No. 1 Bhim @ Raju to work as substitute servant. P. H. 2, Parminder Kauri considered and allowed Bhim to work in the house on 29/11/1995. On 30/11/1995 the accused No. 3 and accused NO. 1 worked together in the house and accused no. 3 Mohan gave necessary instructions to the accused No. 1 Bhim @ Raju. On 1/12/1995 onwards, the accused No. 3 Mohan stopped working in the house of the complainant. The accused no. 1 Bhim alone was narking in the house till the date of incident i. e. 15/12/1995.