S P PILLAY Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three appeals can be conveniently disposed by this common judgment since they arise also out of the same judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Panaji, dated 9th Febraury, 1993 in Sessions Case No. 17/90. By the aforesaid judgment the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants for offence under sections 397 and 307, I P. C. read with Section 34 of I P. C. and also under section 3 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and Section 59 of indian Arms Act read with Section 34 of 1. P. C. and sentenced each of them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence punishable under Section 397 read with Section 34 I. P. C. , in addition to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and also a fine of rs. 2,000, in default, Simple Imprisoment for 4 months for the offence under Section 307,i P. C. and also for a further period of 2 years and a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 month for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 25 (1-B) (a) of the Indian Arms Act read with Section 34 of I. P. C. with a direction that the substantive sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently.

(2.) APPELLANT in Criminal Appeal No. 10/93 is the Accused No. 2, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 12/93 is the Accused No. 4 and appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 14/93 is the Accused No. 1 in the Sessions Case. No. 17/90.

(3.) THE prosecution case is that on 25th November, 1989 at about 10. 30 am. , all the three appellants and the absconding accused Sharad manjrekar, Reginaldo Rodrigues, Prakash and Mauvin, in furtherance of a common intention conjointly armed with daggers and pistols entered raikar's jewellery shop at Feira Alta, Mapusa and committed dacoity of gold ornaments worth Rs. 8. 50 lakhs. On the same occasion the said appellants and the absconding accused attempted to cause death of Shi-vanand barangui, the driver of the owner of the shop, by shooting at him with a pistol with the intention and knowledge that under such circumstances if they had caused Shivanand's death they would be guilty of murder It is further the case of the prosecution that at the relevant time the appellants and the absconding accused were holding pistols without a valid licence.