SAYYED HUSAN SAYAD HUSEN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in this appeal were accused Nos. 1 to 18 in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1956 which was heard and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, East Khandesh, at Jalgaon. They have Been convicted by the learned Judge of an offence under Section 395 and an offence under Section 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, the learned Judge has convicted accused Nos. 1, 6, 8, 12, 15 and 18 of an offence under Section 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. For an offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Judge has sentenced all the 18 accused persons to suffer seven years' rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 435 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Judge has imposed a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment upon all the 18 accused persons. Under Section 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Judge has passed a sentence of 18 months' R. I. upon accused Nos. 1, 6, 8, 12, 15 and 18. Besides passing the substantive sentence of 18 months' rigorous imprisonment upon accused Nos. 1, 6, 8, 12, 15 and 18 the learned Judge has passed a sentence of fine of Rs. 500 upon accused Nos. 1 and 12, a sentence of fine of Rs. 100 upon accused No. 6 and a sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000 upon accused No. 18 under Section 354 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is against this order of convictions and sentences that all the 18 accused persons have appealed and this is that appeal.

(2.) BEFORE stating the facts of the case, as contended by the prosecution, I may point out that the complainant Raghunath is an old man, 65 years of age, and is a retired school Head Master. He is also a registered Medical practitioner. At the material date he was residing in the village Kurhe. He had been residing there since 7 years or more before the date of this incident which occurred on 24th July 1956. The prosecution witness Yamunabai is a tonsured widow. She was 46 years of age at the date of the incident. She is the grand-daughter of the sister of the complainant's father. It may be noted that in the house of the complainant on the material date there were no other inmates except the complainant himself and, Yamunabai.

(3.) DURING the course of his money lending business the complainant Raghunath used to purchase movables belonging to the inhabitants of the village Kurhe. As a registered medical practitioner he used to sell tinctures to his patients. He was also doing a small grocery business in his house. According to his evidence, he was possessed of movables purchased by him in the manner stated above from the residents of the village Kurhe, of the value of 4,000/5,000 rupees at the date of the offence. He had also in his possession documents showing that people owed moneys to him to the extent of one thousand rupees. In his house, on the date of the incident, there were certain pension papers and licences also.