LAWS(BOM)-2008-4-148

SHIVANAND ALIAS SHIVA SHIVSHANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On April 29, 2008
SHIVANAND @ SHIVA SHIVSHANKAR ALGUNDI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this Appeal, the Appellants-original accused Nos.1 to 9 have challenged the judgment and order dated 22nd November, 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 111 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Respondents-accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 427, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 37(1)(a) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under Section 25 read with Section 7 of the Indian Arms Act. For the offence punishable under Section 148 of IPC, each of the appellant is sentenced to RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default SI for one month. For the offence under Section 452 of IPC, they are sentenced to RI for two years and fine of Rs.500/- in default SI for three months. For the offence under Section 427, each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.300/- in default, SI for 15 days. For the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, each of them is sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- in default SI for one year. No separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 147 of IPC, 37(1)(a) read with Section 135 of Bombay Police and under Section 25 read with Section 7 of the Indian Arms Act as the said offences are covered by the punishment imposed under other Sections as stated above.

(2.) The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:

(3.) The charge came to be framed against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 452, 427 and 302 r.w. 149 of IPC and under Section 135 of Bombay Police Act and also under Section 25 r.w. 3 of Arms Act. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is that of total denial. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, has convicted the accused and sentenced them as stated in paragraph 1 above. Hence, this appeal.