RAMESH ALIAS RIMKYABEDYA KALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under rather peculiar circumstances, present appeal is taken up for final disposal expeditiously as the appellants/original accused Nos. 1 and 3 preferred an application for bail bearing No. 353 of 2009 for their release on bail during pendency of Criminal appeal. Till today, when initially bail application was taken up, appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 3 had already undergone imprisonment for 5 years 3 months and 5 years 4 months respectively whereas they were convicted for the offence punishable under section 395 of IPC and sentence to suffer RI for total 6 years and find of Rs. 1000/-. As such, out of total imprisonment of 6 years, they have virtually undergone almost 90% of the sentence. This factual position prompted this Court to take the present criminal appeal for expeditious hearing and disposal instead of dealing with the application for bail.

(2.) In the present appeal, the judgment and order dated 13th May, 2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, Dist. Pune is challenged. By the said judgment and order, the present appellants along with co-accused No. 4 were convicted for the offence punishable under section 395 and sentence to RI for 6 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default, RI for 6 months.

(3.) Learned Advocate Shri Rahul Kate for appellants submitted that considering the effect of substantive evidence brought before the trial Court and considering the allegations against the appellants for the offence punishable under section 395 of I.P.C., a sort of leniency may be shown and sentence of 6 years may be modified to a sentence which the appellants have already undergone. Alternatively, it is submitted that considering the substantive evidence and mainly, the evidence of P.W. 17, 18 and 19, their appeal is required to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and order.