DINESH RAMSEVAK PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment as the appellants in both these appeals were convicted in one and the same trial, held by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.333 of 2011 are the original accused nos.4 and 5 respectively, whereas, the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.666 of 2010 are the original accused nos.1 and 2 respectively. Apart from these appellants, one Vasu Thapa (accused no.3) was also tried in the same case, and was also, like the appellants, convicted; but apparently, no appeal has been filed by him challenging his conviction and the sentences imposed upon him.

(2.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 27th August 2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, convicting the appellants of the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 25(1)(B)(a) read with Section 3(1) of the Arms Act. The sentences imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge upon the appellants are as follows : <p><table class = tablestyle width="90%" border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" align="center" style="font-family:Verdana"> <tr> <td width="25%"><div align="center"><strong>OFFENCE</strong></div></td> <td width="75%"><div align="center"><strong>PUNISHMENT</strong></div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">Section 399 of the IPC</div></td> <td>R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/, in default, R.I. for 6 months.</td> </tr> <tr> <td><div align="center">Section 402 of the IPC</div></td> <td>R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/, in default, R.I. for 3 months.</td> </tr> </table>

(3.) Criminal Appeal No.333 of 2011 was preferred by the appellants therein from prison. As no advocate had been engaged by the said appellants, Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan was appointed to prosecute the appeal under the Free Legal Aid Scheme. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.666 of 2010 had engaged an advocate, but she remained absent repeatedly, even though the appeal was listed on board for final hearing. Since it was not desirable to consider and / or decide the appeals separately (as the evidence was common and the same) Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan was appointed to prosecute the said appeal also, under the Free Legal Aid Scheme.