RAJU AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under Sections 120B of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 342 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 292 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 385 IPC read with Section 34, Section 355 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 351 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. After holding a trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant no.1 guilty of all the aforesaid offences and convicted him accordingly. She, however, held appellant nos.2 and 3 guilty only of the offences punishable under Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 342 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and convicted them accordingly. The learned Additional Sessions Judge imposed the following sentences on the appellants : <p><table class = tablestyle width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" style="font-family:verdana"> <tr> <td width="44%"><div align="center"><strong>Offence punishable under Section</strong></div></td> <td width="56%"><div align="center"><strong>Sentence</strong></div></td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"><div align="left"><strong>Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC</strong></div></td> <td valign="top"><p>Appellant No.1 :

(2.) Being aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the appellants have approached this court challenging the impugned judgment and order, and praying that they be acquitted.

(3.) The appellant no.1 passed away during the pendency of the appeal. However, since the sentence is also of fine, the appeal, even in so far as it relates to appellant no.1, does not abate. The same needs to be decided on merits.