RAHUL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2020-3-407
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on March 02,2020

RAHUL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Present application has been filed for suspension of sentence imposed on the present applicants by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad Dist. Osmanabad in Special (Atrocity) Case No.22 of 2017, dated 21-01-2020. Present applicants have been convicted thus ; "1. Accused (1) Rahul babasaheb Kokate, (2) Babasaheb Raghu Kokate and (3) Gopal Raghu Kokate all R/o Yermala Tq. Kallam Dist. Osmanabad are convicted under Section 235 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 Part-II all read with Sec.34 of The Indian Penal Code , 1860 and Ss.3(1)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989. 2. Accused No.1 to 3 are punished and sentenced under Sec.325 read with 34 of I.P.C ode to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three years each and everyone of them shall pay fine Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only), in default thereof, everyone of them shall undergo simple imprisonment for further 1 (one) month. 3. Accused No.1 to 3 are punished and sentenced under Sec.504 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C ode, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 1 (One) year. 4. Accused No.1 to 3 are sentenced under Sec. 506 Part II read with Sec.34 I.P.C ode, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 3 (Three) years each with fine Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) each, in default thereof everyone of them they shall undergo simple imprisonment for further 1 (One) month. 5. Accused No.1 to 3 are further sentenced under Ss.3(1)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (Three) years each and everyone of them shall pay fine Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only), in default thereof everyone of them shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (One) month......"
(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr. S. J. Salunke for applicants/ appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya for respondent-State. In order to cut short, it can be said that, both of them have argued in support of their respective contentions.
(3.) At the outset it can be seen that the points which are in favour of the applicants are that the maximum sentence that has been awarded is three years which can be said to be the small sentence and, therefore, in view of Kiran Kumar v. State of M.P ., reported in (2001) 9 SCC 211, they deserve to be released on bail by suspending their sentence since the appeal is admitted.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.