SUNIL BHIKU YADAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants-original accused have challenged the judgment and order dated 6. 12. 1991 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in sessions Case No. 66 of 1989. By the said judgment and order, the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 498-A r. w. Section 34 and 304-B r. w. Section 34 of IPC. For the offence under Section 498-A r. w. Section 34 of IPC, the appellants were sentenced to SI for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- each i/d SI for three months. For the offence under Section 304-B r. w. Section 34 of IPC, the appellants were sentenced to RI for seven years. However, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the appellants of the offence under section 306 r. w. Section 34 of IPC. The learned sessions Judge directed that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

(2.) The appellant no. 1 is the husband of deceased Neeta. Appellant no. 2 is mother of appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 3 is married sister of appellant no. 1. At this stage, it may be stated here that during the pendency of the appeal, appellant no. 2 expired and hence, this appeal abates as far as appellant no. 2 is concerned. Thus, this appeal is being considered only in respect of appellant nos, 1 and 3.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants-original accused and the learned APP for the State. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as record pertaining to the present case. After carefully and anxiously considering the same, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the accused under Section 304-B r. w. 34 of IPC cannot be sustained.