Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

-

1. This appeal has been directed under Section 378 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') against the judgment and order dated 13-12-2002 passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions ..2.. CrAppeal No.271.2003 Case No.125 of 1997 whereby it has acquitted the respondents / original accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 201, 203, 177 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter in short 'IPC') .

8. Having considered all these aspects, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Beed rightly held that charge under Section 302 of the IPC is not sustainable. Once the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 302 of IPC, question of holding the respondents guilty for the charges under Sections 203, 177 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. which are based on the charge under Section 302 of IPC holds no water and question of holding the respondents guilty for the said charges does not arise.

28. Once the charge under Section 302 of IPC fails for the reason referred to above, subsequent charges under Sections 201, 203 and 177 r.w. 34 of the I.P.C. for causing disappearance of the evidence to screen themselves from the legal punishment, giving false information regarding an offence committed and furnishing false information to the public servant though legally bound to furnish true information on the subject which he knows, bear no force and substance. Thus, the only charge under Section 498-A of IPC remains.

66. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Beed though rightly acquitted respondents / accused under Sections 302, 201, 203 and 177 r.w. 34 of IPC, but wrongly acquitted them for the offences under Section 498-A r.w. 34 of IPC. Thus, for the various reasons stated in para supra, the respondents are liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B r.w. 34 of IPC.

..52.. CrAppeal No.271.2003