ARJUN RANGRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2010 has been filed by Original Accused No. 5, Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2010 has been filed by Original Accused No. 6 and Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2010 has been filed by Original Accused Nos. 1 to 4. Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 2010 has been filed by the State for enhancement of sentence. Since all these appeals arise from the same judgment of the trial court, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. Original Accused Nos. 1 to 4, who stand convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and each accused to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of which to undergo further SI for six months, while accused No. 6 - Sambhaji Patil stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of which to undergo SI for three months, accused No. 2 - Bapu and accused No. 5 - Arjun, who stand convicted for offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and each accused to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of which to undergo further SI six months, by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1 & Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur, by judgment dated 28/01/2010, in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2006, by these appeals challenge their conviction and sentence. The State by filing Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2010 has sought enhancement of the sentence passed against the accused.

(2.) Facts, in brief, as are necessary for the decision of these appeals may be stated thus:-

(3.) On the case being committed to the Court of Sessions, trial court vide Exh. 2 framed charge against the appellants/accused for offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, prosecution examined 18 witnesses, while the accused in their defence examined D.W. 1 - Shrirang Patil. The defence of the accused was of denial. Trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforestated. The appellants, being thus aggrieved by their conviction and sentence have filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 90, 89 and 91 of 2010, while the State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2010 seeking enhancement of the sentence.