AKSHAY KAILASH PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are arising out of judgment and order of conviction dated 01.06.2016, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Akot in Sessions Trial No.21/2014. Accused No.1 - Akshay Pachange and Accused No.2 - Akshay Purohit, were charged for offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A, 302, 201, 120B read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, and Section 66A of The Information Technology Act.

(2.) Accused No.2 - Akshay Purohit has filed Criminal Appeal No. 171/2017, challenging the order of conviction for the offences stated above. Accused No.1 Akshay Pachange has also challenged his conviction and sentence by filing Appeal No. 220/2016. The State has challenged acquittal of Accused No.1 Akshay Pachanage for offence punishable under Sections 302, 364A of the Indian Penal Code, vide Criminal Appeal No. 409/2017. Likewise, the original informant vide Criminal Appeal no. 410/2017, has challenged the acquittal of both the accused for respective offences, and also sought for enhancement of the punishment.

(3.) During the trial, Accused No.2 refused to take legal assistance from the Legal Aid Panel. The learned Sessions Judge made every endeavor to convince him for seeking assistance of a competent Lawyer from the panel of Legal Aid, but, he refused. Since accused No.2 was under trial prisoner, and there was considerable delay in the progress of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge aptly appointed Advocate Ajit Deshpande as Amicus Curiae to defend accused no.2. It emerges from the record that the learned Sessions Judge took every care to see that the accused were properly and ably represented and every opportunity was given to put up their defence. In the appeal, no grievance is made that there was no proper representation to accused no.2 before the trial Court. We are satisfied from the record that every opportunity was given to accused no.2 Purohit, and he was properly defended.