JAGANNATH DHULAPPA TUGSHETTY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/original accused No. 1 has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 13th January, 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 133 of 2008. By the said judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 397 read with Section 394 and 452 of I.P.C. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., the appellant was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default RI for six months. For the offence punishable under Section 397 read with Section 394 of I.P.C., the appellant was sentenced to suffer RI for seven years. For the offence punishable under Section 452 of I.P.C., the appellant was sentenced to suffer RI for three years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default RI for six months. The learned Sessions Judge directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:

(2.) Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Sections 452, 302, 394 read with 397 and 201 of I.P.C. Charge was also framed against the original accused No. 2 Mukesh Jain, proprietor of 'Mukesh Jewelers' under Section 411 of I.P.C. that is he received the stolen property (two rings) having reason to believe that the same was stolen property. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. Their defence is that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused No. 2 of the offence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C. However, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated in para 1 above, hence, this appeal.

(3.) We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. We have carefully considered their submissions, the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence in this case. After carefully considering the matter, for the below mentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal.