DINESH BULAKHI HARIJAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rahul was eight years of age and resided with his parents at Andheri. His father had a business in Shoes. The two accused Dinesh and Laxman - were, according to the prosecution, employed at the workshop for the purposes of the business. The case of the prosecution is that the accused stayed at the workshop from Monday to Saturday . They had their meals at the residence of Rahul's father Ganeshprasad Punit Mahato, P.W. 1. Rahul was a student of the second standard and attended school between 10 a.m. and 3.30 p.m. On 1st February 2003, PW 1 was informed that Rahul had not returned home since five in the evening. A search having been futile, a complaint was lodged with the Police. The accused used to go home on Saturday evenings to Airoli. PW 1 is alleged to have made enquiries on 2nd February 2003 at their residence. The accused were brought to the workshop by their father-in-law on 2nd February 2003 but they denied knowledge of the whereabouts of Rahul. After being in contact with PW 1 for four or five days, the accused are alleged to have stopped attending the place of work. A complaint was lodged on 21st March 2003 against the accused. Appellant No.1 was apprehended at the Kurla Railway Station, on 22nd March 2003. Appellant No.2 was apprehended in Bihar on 26th March 2003. The skull and bones of the victim were according to the prosecution, recovered from a remote spot at a hillock near Airoli at the behest of Accused No.1, on 23rd March 2003.

(2.) Both the accused were committed to trial and were charged with offences punishable under Sections 201, 302 and 363 of the Penal Code all read together with Section 34. The prosecution adduced the evidence of six witnesses. By a judgment dated 10th May 2005, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused of offences punishable under Section 302 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Both the accused were convicted of offences under Section 363 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to a fine of Rs.300/- each and in default, to further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of offences punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34.

(3.) The appeal was submitted by the two accused through Jail. By an order dated 1st April 2007, a Division Bench of this Court, while admitting the appeal, directed the office to appoint an Advocate from the Legal Aid panel. Accordingly, we have heard Shri Sachin Kadam, Legal Aid Counsel who appeared on behalf of the accused and the Learned APP for State.