Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code being exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, this case was committed to Sessions Court, Ahmednagar. Charge (Exh.24) was framed against accused No.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 395, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Defence of the accused is of total denial.

5. Prosecution examined total 10 witnesses. After considering the evidence placed on record, the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar acquitted all the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 395 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Only accused No.2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. Therefore, Criminal Appeal no.352/2000 is preferred by accused No.2. State has challenged Cri. Appeal No.252/2000 with only acquittal of the accused No.1 to 5 of the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Acquittal of all accused persons for the offence under remaining Sections is not challenged by State Government. Even acquittal of accused No.6 to 8 is not challenged by the State Government. Therefore, evidence available against accused No.6 to 8 will not be discussed.

20. At the time of commission of the offence, accused No.2 was 45 years old. Therefore, now in the year 2017, he must be around 63 to 64 years old. Considering this advance age of the accused No.2, it is not desirable to impose imprisonment for life under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. On the other hand, considering overall circumstances of the case, the nature of the injuries sustained by witnesses and the age of accused, imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code will suffice to meet the ends of justice.

(iii) Judgment and order of acquittal of accused No.2 Chendya Hurdya Kale for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.
(iv) The respondent No.2 Chendya Hurdya Kale is held guilty for commission of the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.