Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2 It appears that the original accused no.1-Kishor Sahebrao Jadhav was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 177 of IPC and was sentenced to SI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

APEAL.263-2008.sxw He has not filed any appeal challenging his conviction and sentence as both the accused were in jail since 20.9.2005 and accused no.1- Kishor had undergone the sentence passed by the Trial Court.

APEAL.263-2008.sxw

(viii) On committal of the case, the Court of Sessions, Trial Court vide Exhibit-3 framed charged against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 177 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 14 witnesses, while the accused examined two defence witnesses. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the Appellant-

original Accused No.2 as aforestated while acquitting the Appellant for an offence punishable under Section 177 of IPC.

4. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by Mr. Chomal, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and learned APP, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

5. Initially, the offence which was registered was under the Motor Vehicles Act and under Section 279 of IPC on the basis of information given by accused no.1 that he had noticed that his brother-in-law deceased Vijay had met with an accident. The aforesaid information given by APEAL.263-2008.sxw accused no.1-Kishor was reduced into writing and accordingly offence was registered. On 19.9.2005, PW-11-Bhausaheb, uncle of deceased Vijay, had gone to the police station and had given an application at Exhibit 34 intimating that he had received an anonymous telephone calls informing him that the death of Vijay was not because of vehicular accident but was a homicidal death. In the application at Exhibit 34, PW-11 Bhausaheb had also disclosed that PW-4 Shaikh was an eye-witness to the incident.

APEAL.263-2008.sxw

16. We, however, find that though accuse no.1 Kishor was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 177 of IPC, accused no.1 has chosen not to file any appeal. Since we find that the evidence against the accused is extremely weak and is incapable of sustaining the conviction of the accused, the benefit of our judgment must be extended to accused no.1, though he has not filed the appeal. Accused No.1 Kishor was convicted for furnishing a false information. If the accused are acquitted, the falsity of the information furnished by accused no.1 is not established.