Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Mr. M. K. Joshi and Mrs. V. S. Deshpande, first emphatically tried to convince us that the evidence on record does not inspire confidence and the appellants deserve a clear acquittal; at any rate, benefit of doubt, on both the counts. It was only when their aforesaid submission failed to make any impression on us, that they switched on to the alternative argument namely that the learned Trial Judge gravely erred in convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC and should have instead convicted the appellant Sayed Munna under Section 326 IPC and appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh under Section 326/34 IPC.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, in our view, the learned Trial Judge rightly accepted the involvement of the appellants in the instant crime. In our view, the learned Trial Judge also rightly held that the prosecution had brought home the guilt of the appellants under Section 387 read with Section 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

15. However, in our opinion, the learned trial Judge grossly erred in convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and instead he should have convicted the appellant Sayed Munna under Section 326 IPC and appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh under Section 326/34 IPC.

26. The question which arises is as to what should be the quantum of sentence which should be awarded to appellant Sayed Munna under Section 326 IPC and to appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. We have given our anxious consideration to this question. In our opinion, looking to the totality of circumstances, a sentence of five years RI under Section 326 IPC and 326 read with Section 34 IPC to appellants Sayed Munna and Nasir Hussain Shaikh respectively, would meet the ends of justice.

27. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed. We acquit both the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and set aside their sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and 30 days RI in default of payment of fine, awarded thereunder. In case, the appellants have paid the fine, the same shall stand refunded to them. Instead we convict the appellant Sayed Munna under Section 326 IPC and sentence him to undergo five years RI and appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and also sentence him to undergo five years RI. We confirm the conviction and sentence of both the appellants under Section 387 read with Section 34 IPC. In case the appellants have not paid fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed under Section 387 read with Section 34 IPC, they may do so within a period of 3 months from today failing which, they would undergo sentence imposed in default of payment of fine by the learned trial Judge, The substantive sentence of appellant Sayed Munna under Section 326 IPC and that of appellant Nasir Hussain Shaikh under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC shall run concurrently with their sentence of five years RI awarded under Section 387 read with Section 34 IPC by the learned Trial Judge. In computing the period of jail sentence of the appellants, the period already served by them prior to their conviction shall be credited to their account. The appellants are in jail and shall remain there till they serve out their sentence.