NILESH RAMPHER SHAHU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge9, Nagpur, dated 20th of March, 2014, in Session Trial No.41 of 2012, the appellants are before this Court. The appellant no.1 was accused no.1 before the Court below whereas the appellant nos.2 and 3 were accused nos.2 and 3, respectively, during the trial. They will be referred by their original position in the present judgment. By the impugned judgment, the accused no.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused nos.2 and 3 though acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) FACTUAL MATRIX : The prosecution case, as it is unfurled during the course of the trial, is as under :

(3.) We have heard Shri R.M.Daga with Shri C.R.Thakur, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri T.A.Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With their able assistance, we have gone through the record and proceedings minutely. The only submission that was advanced before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellants is that even if it is found by this Court that the appellant no.1 is responsible for the death of Manish, he cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, the appellant no.1 at the most can be convicted for the lesser offence. The standpoint of the appellant is combated by the learned Prosecutor by inviting our attention to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and he submitted that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants for lesser offence has no merit and therefore prayed for dismissal of the appeal.