Bombay High Court
Murli S/O Maniram Dhurve (In Jail) vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. P.S.O. ... on 22 December, 2020
Author: Amit B. Borkar
Bench: Z. A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 cr225 and 443.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 225 OF 2016
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.443 OF 2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 225 OF 2016
Murli s/o Maniram Dhurve,
Aged about 29 years,
Occ: Farmer,
R/o Kasumbi, Tahsil Warashivni,
District - Balaghat (In Jail) . . . APPELLANT
...V E R S U S..
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Tumsar,
District Bhandara. . . . RESPONDENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.M.Daga, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms. K.S. Joshi, Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 443 OF 2016
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Tumsar,
Tah.Tumsar,
District Bhandara. . . . APPELLANT
...V E R S U S..
Virendra S/o Ramesh Fule,
Age 28 years, Occ. Labour,
R/o Tumsar, Tah. Tumsar, . . . RESPONDENT
District. Bhandara.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. K.S. Joshi, Public Prosecutor for the appellant.
Shri C.R.Thakur, Advocate (appointed) for the respondent.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 :::
2 cr225 and 443.16.odt
CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 18.12.2020.
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.12.2020.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.) :
1. Since both these appeals arise out of the same set of facts and common judgment, we are disposing them by common judgment.
2. Through these two appeals, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.225 of 2016 challenges the judgment and order dated 07.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Sessions Case No.45 of 2008, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated herein as under:
"(i) Under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months; and
(ii) Under Sections 452 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months."::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 :::
3 cr225 and 443.16.odt
3. The State of Maharashtra has filed Criminal Appeal No.443 of 2016 challenging acquittal of the accused no.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The prosecution case, in short, is as under:
The accused no.1 - Kishor Maniram Dhurve, Accused no.2 -
Murli Maniram Dhurve and Accused no.3 - Virendra Ramesh Fule, came to the house of Informant - Pradip Thakur (PW 3) on 28.03.2008 at about 11.00 p.m. The accused no.1 - Kishor had knife, accused no.2 -
Murli had sword and accused no.3 - Virendra Rameh Fule had sword, in their hands. The accused no.1 kicked in the door of the house of Lalitabai and the accused nos.1 and 2 caught hold hands of Lalitabai and dragged her out of her room. The accused no.1 - Kishor assaulted Lalitabai using knife on her abdomen. The Informant - Pradeep Thakur (PW 3) tried to obstruct the accused nos.1 and 2. Ramprasad Kumbhare (PW 5) woke up and came into the room of Lalitabai on hearing the voice of the Informant - Pradeep Thakur (PW 3).
Ramprasad Kumbhare (PW 5) tried to obstruct the accused nos.1 and 2, but he sustained injury on his left hand thumb.
Meanwhile, public arrived at the spot and therefore, the accused nos.2 and 3 ran away. Ramprasad Kumbhare (PW 5) went to the police ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 ::: 4 cr225 and 443.16.odt station and brought police at the spot. Lalitabai (deceased) sustained bleeding injuries. Hence, Jaiprakash Kumbhare (PW 4) tied towel around her wound.
5. On the basis of oral report given by Pradeep Thakur (PW 3) on 29.05.2008, First Information Report No.65 of 2008 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Lalitabai succumbed to her injuries on 29.03.2008 at 6.15 a.m. Therefore, the offence under Section 307 of the IPC was converted into the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
6. The police carried out the investigation. Ms. Shweta Khedkar - Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses and the accused were arrested. On the basis of the statements of the accused nos.1 to 3, weapons used in the crime were discovered. The police recorded the statements of all the accused and seizure panchanama was drawn in presence of panch witnesses. The police also seized the clothes of the accused and Lalitabai (deceased). Blood samples of the accused and Lalitabai (deceased) were taken and sent to the Chemical Analyst. The police also recorded inquest of the dead body and got autopsy done to know the cause of death. After completion of the investigation, the police filed Charge-sheet in the Court. The case ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 :::
5 cr225 and 443.16.odt was thereafter committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara, as the offence under Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
7. The charges were framed against the accused, which were explained to them in vernacular, for which they pleaded not guilty. The defence of the accused was of total denial and false implication.
8. The learned Trial Judge believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution and convicted the accused nos.1 and 2 in the manner stated in paragraph No.2 as above and acquitted the accused no.3. Hence, both these appeals are filed.
9. We have heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the entire material on record. In our view, Criminal Appeal No. 225 of 2016 filed by the accused no.2 deserves to be dismissed and Criminal Appeal No.443 of 2016 filed by the State against acquittal of the accused no.3 deserves to be allowed.
10. Shri R.M. Daga, learned Advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.225 of 2016 filed by the accused no.2, submitted that there is material inconsistencies in the manner of assault stated by the eye-witnesses. He submitted that two eye-witnesses stated that ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 ::: 6 cr225 and 443.16.odt Lalitabai (deceased) was dragged by the accused no.2, but one eye-witness stated that the accused no.2 caught hold hands of Lalitabai. He invited our attention to the post-mortem report and submitted that there was only one blow. He submitted that the seizure, recovery of weapons and clothes are not proved by the prosecution. He, in the alternative, submitted that considering the manner of assault and the other facts and circumstances, the conviction of the accused no.2 deserves to be converted into conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
11. Ms. K.S.Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor invited our attention to the testimonies of the eye-witnesses i.e. Pradeep Thakur (PW 3), Jaiprakash Kumbhare (PW 4), Ramprasad Kumbhare (PW 5) and Nilu Kumbhare (PW 10) and submitted that the eye-witnesses have narrated the manner of assault in the similar manner, which is supported by the medical evidence. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge has rightly convicted the accused no.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 452 of the IPC.
In Criminal Appeal No.443 of 2016, she submitted that the accused no.3 came at the spot of incident alongwith rest of the accused and went away alongwith them. The accused no.3 was carrying sword. The learned Trial Judge was not justified in acquitting the accused no.3, ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 ::: 7 cr225 and 443.16.odt only on the ground that there was no overt act committed by the accused no.3.
12. As we have mentioned earlier, four eye-witnesses namely Pradeep Thakur (PW 3) Jaiprakash Kumbhare (PW 4), Ramprasad Kumbhare (PW 5) and Nilu Kumbhare (PW 10) gave evidence in respect of the assault on Lalitabai (deceased). In short, Pradeep Thakur (PW 3), Jaiprakash Kumbhare (PW 4), Ramprasad Kumbhare (PW 5) and Nilu Kumbhare (PW 10) stated that on 28.03.2008, at about 11.00 p.m., the accused no.1 - Kishor Dhurve, accused no.2 - Murli Dhurve and accused no.3 - Virendra (Viru) Fule came to their house. The accused nos.1 and 2 entered into the house and accused no.3 waited at veranda. The accused no.1 - Kishor had large knife and accused no.2 - Murli had sword in their hands, accused no.3 - Virendra had also sword with him. The accused no.2 - Murli abused Lalitabai. The accused nos.1 and 2 dragged Lalitabai upto the door. The accused no.1 - Kishor stabbed Lalitabai with knife on her abdomen. Jaiprakash (PW 4) and Ramprasad (PW 5) came there on hearing hue and cry. Ramprasad (PW 5) tried to snatch knife from the hands of the accused no.1 - Kishor and sustained injuries on his thumb. Meanwhile, public arrived at the spot. Hence, the accused no.2 - Murli and accused no.3 - Virendra ran away from the spot.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 :::
8 cr225 and 443.16.odt
13. The evidence of Pradeep Thakur (PW 3), Jaiprakash Kumbhare (PW 4), Ramprasad Kumbhare (PW 5) and Nilu Kumbhare (PW 10) show that the accused no.1 was armed with knife before he entered the house of Lalitabai (deceased). The accused no.2 was armed with sword before he entered the house of Lalitabai (deceased). The accused no. 3 was also armed with sword, who was standing at veranda of the house of Lalitabai (deceased).
14. We have examined the evidence of all the four eye- witnesses i.e. Pradeep Thakur (PW 3) Jaiprakash Kumbhare (PW 4), Ramprasad Kumbhare (PW 5) and Nilu Kumbhare (PW 10) and find it to be implicitly truthful. Ramprasad Kumbhare (PW 5) being the injured eye-witness, his testimony carries more credibility. The manner of assault, as furnished by Pradeep Thakur (PW 3) Jaiprakash Kumbhare (PW 4), Ramprasad Kumbhare (PW 5) and Nilu Kumbhare (PW 10) on Lalitabai (deceased) is corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. Avinash Nanhe (PW 8) and Dr. Vikas Meshram (PW 12).
15. Dr. Avinash Nanhe (PW 8) stated that on 29.03.2008, he conducted post-mortem of the deceased. On examination of the dead body, he found the following external injuries: ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 :::
9 cr225 and 443.16.odt "Stab would of size 7 cm. x 6cm x 14 cm. On left umbilicus region of abdomen 5 cm. above and lateral to umbilicus. The margin of stab wound are clear-cut.
The direction of wound is medially downward going to right side of abdomen. The age of the injury was more than 6 hours as the colour of wound is dark reddish. The cause of injury may be due to sharp edged blade and pointed object. The intestine is seen to have come out through the wound".
On examination of the dead body of the deceased, he found the following internal injuries:
"(1) At inner side of wall of injury haematoma
present. The peritoneum ruptured a left side of
umbilicus 5 cm. above and lateral to umbilicus. Clotted blood present. Peritoneal contains clotted blood and hemorrhagic fluid of about 3 to 4 liters present.
(2) On liver, there is a lacerated wound of size 5 cm. x 1 cm. x 3 cm. Is present over inferior side of liver of left lower lobe. Clotted blood present inside the wound".
According to Dr. Avinash Nanhe (PW 8) probable cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock, due to excessive hemorrhage and due to injuries to vital organs. He further stated that the injuries sustained by Lalitabai (deceased) might have been caused by the recovered weapons.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 :::
10 cr225 and 443.16.odt Dr. Vikas Meshram (PW 12) stated that on 29.03.2008, he examined Lalitabai (deceased) and found stab wounds over abdomen and abrasions on left leg and abrasions on left hand. Therefore, he referred Lalitabai to Government Hospital, Bhandara, for further treatment. He stated that he also examined Ramprasad Kumbhare (PW 5) and found incised wound on his left thumb Palmer, which was caused by sharp and cutting object.
16. Assurance is also lent to the ocular account by circumstance that at the place of incident, the Investigating Officer found blood stained earth. C.A. Report (Exh. 18) shows that the clothes of the accused no.1 - Kishor and accused no.2 - Murli were stained with human blood having blood group "A". The C.A. Report further shows that blood group of Lalitabai (deceased) was "A". The C.A. Report (Exh. 21) shows that blood group of the accused no.2 - Murli is "O" and C.A. Report (Exh.22) shows that blood group of the accused no.1 - Kishor is also "O". The presence of blood group "A" on the clothes of the accused nos.1 and 2 has not been explained by the accused. On the contrary, it corroborates their presence on the spot and at the time of incident. We find that the testimonies of Pradeep Thakur (PW 3), Jaiprakash Kumbhare (PW 4), Ramprasad Kumbhare (PW 5) and Nilu ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 ::: 11 cr225 and 443.16.odt Kumbhare (PW 10) are sufficient to fix involvement of the accused nos.1 to 3 in the crime.
17. Shri Daga, learned Advocate for the appellant, submitted that there are inconsistencies in the manner of assault stated by the eye-witnesses. The eye-witnesses further stated that the accused no.2 - Murli dragged Lalitabai (deceased) out of her room and one witness stated that the accused no.2 - Murli only caught hold hands of Lalitabai (deceased). In our opinion, the inconsistencies relied upon by Shri Daga, learned Advocate for the appellant, does not have any material bearing on the narration of the incident by all the four eye- witnesses i.e. Pradeep Thakur (PW 3), Jaiprakash Kumbhare (PW 4), Ram Prasad Kumbhare (PW 5) and Nilu Kumbhare (PW 10). The inconsistencies pointed out by Shri Daga, does not create reasonable doubt about narration of the assault by all the four eye-witnesses .
18. Insofar as the submission of Shri Daga, learned Advocate for the appellant, that the seizure, recovery of weapons and clothes are not proved by the prosecution is concerned, we have gone through the evidence of the Investigating Officer and C.A. Report and we find that there is sufficient material on record to fix involvement of the accused nos.1 to 3. The prosecution has proved presence of blood on the knife ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 ::: 12 cr225 and 443.16.odt recovered at the instance of the accused no.1 and swords at the instance of accused nos. 2 and 3.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, in our view, the learned Trial Court correctly recorded the finding as regards the involvement of the accused no.2 established in the incident. The conviction of the appellant - accused no.2, therefore, does not call for any interference. This leaves us with the question namely, the nature of offence committed by the accused no.2.
20. Shri Daga, learned Advocate for the appellant, strenuously urged that the appellant - accused no.2 only dragged Lalitabai (deceased) out of the house and therefore, the offence would fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The accused no.1 - Kishor has not filed appeal challenging his conviction and sentence and he is undergoing sentence imposed under the impugned judgment.
Ms. K.S.Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor, strenuously urged that the offence would squarely fall within four corners of third Clause of Section 300 read with Section 34 of the IPC. She submitted that this is not a case of sudden quarrel. There was one blow on the abdomen of Lalitabai (deceased), which was the stab wound of size 7 cm x 6 cm x 14 cm on left umbilicus region of abdomen of size 5 cm about and lateral to umbilicus.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 :::
13 cr225 and 443.16.odt
21. It is proved that the accused no.2 dragged Lalitabai (deceased) alongwith the accused no.1, who inflicted knife blow on Lalitabai (deceased) and the accused no.2 alongwith the accused no.1 had requisite intention to cause death of Lalitabai (deceased) in terms of third Clause of Section 300 of the IPC. The accused no.1 and accused no. 2 had common intention to commit the murder of Lalitabai. The incident has occurred with pre-meditation and was not the incident by chance. There was no sudden and grave provocation before the incident, which prompted the accused nos.1 and 2 to assault Lalitabai (deceased). The incident had not occurred in the heat of passion. The blow of knife by the accused no.1 was at the vital part of the body. The accused nos.1 and 2 had carried weapons at the spot of incident and were not picked up from the spot. The other circumstance to prove the intention as contemplated by Section 300 of the IPC is that the accused no.2 was carrying sword, which is the deadly weapon. Therefore, we cannot accede to the submissions of Shri Daga, learned Advocate for the appellant, that the offence would fall within the four corners of Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
22. The next question is whether the learned Trial Judge is justified in acquitting the accused no.3. The eye-witnesses Pradeep Thakur (PW 3), Jaiprakash Kumbhare (PW 4), Ramprasad Kumbhare ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 ::: 14 cr225 and 443.16.odt (PW 5) and Nilu Kumbhare (PW 10) have stated that the accused no.3 was standing at veranda of the house. It is proved that the accused no.3 came to the spot of incident alongwith the accused nos.1 and 2 carrying sword. It is also proved by the prosecution that the accused nos.2 and 3 left the spot of incident alongwith each other. Though the accused no.3 had not committed any overt act during the assault, but the evidence on record is sufficient to hold that there was common intention amongst the accused nos.1 to 3. It appears that the accused no.3 was standing at veranda as a cover to the accused nos.1 and 2, which proves common intention on the part of the accused nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the accused no.3 is also liable to be convicted having resort to Section 34 of the IPC, as the prosecution has proved common intention of the accused nos.1 to 3.
23. Shri C.R.Thakur, learned Advocate for the respondent no.3 in Criminal Appeal No.443 of 2016, submitted that there was no overt act committed by the accused no.3. The accused no.3 was standing at veranda and the incident occurred inside the house. All the eye-witnesses have stated that the assault was carried out by the accused nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge is justified in acquitting the accused no.3.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 :::
15 cr225 and 443.16.odt
24. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and after going through the reasons given by the learned Trial Judge in paragraph 17 of the judgment, we are of the view that the Trial Court is not justified in acquitting the accused no.3 holding that the accused no.3 had not committed any overt act and waited at veranda only. It is further held by the Trial Court that the accused no.3 did not participate in assault on any person or the deceased. In our view, the test of overt act applied by the learned Trial Judge is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 407, wherein the Apex Court has laid down the conditions to be fulfilled for attracting the offence under Section 34 of the IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.40 has observed that the dominant feature of Section 34 of the IPC is the element of intention and participation in action. This participation need not in all cases be by physical presence. The common intention implies acting in concert. It is further observed in paragraph no.42 that in order that Section 34 of the IPC may apply, it is not necessary that the prosecution must prove that the act was done by a particular or a specified person.
25. Shri Thakur, learned Advocate for the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 2016 relied on the case of Ezajhussain ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 ::: 16 cr225 and 443.16.odt Sabdarhussain vs State of Gujarat, reported on (2019) 14 SCC 339 in support of his submission but paragraph 17 of the judgment takes away the force of his submission. Paragraph 17 of the said judgment is as follows:
"17. It is clear from the principles laid down that however similar the facts may seem to be in a cited precedent, the case in hand should be determined on facts and circumstances of that case in hand only and the mere similarity of the facts in one case cannot be used to determine the conclusion of the fact in another. Common intention being the state of mind can be gathered by inference drawn from the facts and circumstances established in a given case. The cases involving almost similar facts and circumstances cannot be used as precedent to determine the conclusions on facts in the case in hand".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopi Nath alias Jhallar Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2001) 6 SCC 620 observed in paragraph 8 as under:
"8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side. As for the challenge made to the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, it is necessary to advert to the salient principles to be kept in consideration and often reiterated by this Court, in the matter of invoking the aid of Section 34 IPC, before dealing with the factual aspect of the claim made on behalf of ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 ::: 17 cr225 and 443.16.odt the appellant. Section 34 IPC has been held to lay down the rule of joint responsibility for criminal acts performed by plurality of persons who joined together in doing the criminal act, provided that such commission is in furtherance of the common intention of all of them. Even the doing of separate, similar or diverse acts by several persons, so long as they are done in furtherance of a common intention, render each of such persons liable for the result of them all, as if he had done them himself, for the whole of the criminal action - be it that it was not overt or was only a covert act or merely an omission constituting an illegal omission. The section, therefore, has been held to be attracted even where the acts committed by the different confederates are different when it is established in one way or the other that all of them participated and engaged themselves in furtherance of the common intention which might be of a pre- concerted or pre-arranged plan or one manifested or developed at the spur of the moment in the course of the commission of the offence. The common intention or the intention of the individual concerned in furtherance of the common intention could be proved either from direct evidence or by inference from the acts or attending circumstances of the case and conduct of the parties. The ultimate decision, at any rate, would invariably depend upon the inferences deducible from the circumstances of each case."
26. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the application of Section 34 of the IPC, we have reached the ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 ::: 18 cr225 and 443.16.odt conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt the commission of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the accused no.3.
27. We make no bones in observing that in reaching the said conclusion, we have borne in mind the time-honoured principles, which this Court keeps in mind while interfering in an appeal against acquittal, namely, that the interference should only be made, if either the assessment of the evidence by acquitting Court is grossly unreasonable or the impugned order of acquittal suffers from any manifest illegality, which has occasioned in the failure of justice.
We have kept in mind the golden rule that if two views are equally reasonable; one of acquittal and one of conviction then, the mere circumstance that this Court is inclined to take the latter view would be no ground to reverse an order of acquittal.
28. This leaves us with only one question namely, the sentence to be awarded to the accused no.3.
29. We have heard Shri C.R.Thakur, learned Advocate for the respondent/accused no.3 - Virendra s/o Ramesh Fule on the point of sentence to be imposed on the respondent/accused no.3 - Virendra Ramesh Fule. Shri Thakur, learned Advocate for the accused no.3, ::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 ::: 19 cr225 and 443.16.odt submitted that in the fitness of things, hearing may be granted to the respondent/accused no.3 - Virendra S/o Ramesh Fule on the point of sentence.
30. Ms. K.S.Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that taking into consideration the gravity of offence committed by the accused no.3, imprisonment for life is the minimum sentence, provided under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and appropriate sentence, as per law may kindly be imposed on the accused no.3 - Virendra s/o Ramesh Fule.
31. We have considered the submissions made by Ms. K.S.Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and Shri C.R.Thakur, learned Advocate for the respondent. Having considered the submissions made by learned Advocate for the respondent-accused no.3 and learned Public Prosecutor for the State, we are of the opinion that imprisonment for life shall be appropriate sentence taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case. Since we are imposing sentence for life, which is the minimum sentence, prescribed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not necessary to hear the respondent -accused no.3 personally on the point of sentence.
In the result, we pass the following order:
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 :::
20 cr225 and 443.16.odt
(i) Criminal Appeal No.225 of 2016 is dismissed.
(ii) Criminal Appeal No.443 of 2016 is allowed. The acquittal of the respondent - accused no.3 - Virendra Ramesh Fule, aged 28 years, R/o Tumsar, Tahsil- Tumsar, District Bhandara recorded, vide impugned judgment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is set aside.
(iii) The respondent - accused no.3 - Virendra Ramesh Fule is found guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and is directed to suffer sentence of life. The respondent/accused no.3 - Virendra s/o Ramesh Fule, aged 28 years, R/o Tumsar, Tahsil - Tumsar, District Bhandara, is convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.
(iv) The respondent/accused no.3 - Virendra Ramesh Fule, is directed to surrender on or before 15 th January, 2021. If the accused fails to surrender on or before 15 th January, 2021, the Sessions Judge, Bhandara and the Superintendent of Police, Bhandara shall take steps to take the respondent/accused no.3 - Virendra Ramesh Fule, R/o.Tumsar, Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara in custody.
(v) Acquittal of the respondent - accused no.3, vide impugned judgment for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 149 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained.
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 :::
21 cr225 and 443.16.odt
(vi) The respondent - accused no.3 shall be entitled for set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the period undergone by him.
(vii) The bail bond, if any, of the respondent-accused no.3 shall stand cancelled.
(viii) Muddemal property be dealt with according to law.
(ix) Fees of appointed advocate are quantified as per Rules.
Both Criminal Appeals are disposed in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
ambulkar
::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2021 16:48:30 :::