HANMANTU SON OF MALLA ATRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-1
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Decided on November 02,2017

Hanmantu Son Of Malla Atram Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ROHIT B.DEO, J. - (1.) Exception is taken to the judgment and order dated 24.06.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case 67/2008, by and under which, appellant 1-Hanmantu is convicted for offence punishable under section 294 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, for offence punishable under section 323 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment and to payment of fine of Rs.500/- and is however, released under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, and for section 324 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer two months rigorous imprisonment and to payment of fine of Rs.1000/- and for assaulting one Sonubai is convicted for offence under section 324 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to payment of fine of Rs.2000/-, appellant 2-Shyambai is convicted for the offence of assaulting Gangubai under section 323 read with section 34 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment is granted benefit under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and appellant 3-Subhash is convicted for offence under section 324 read with section 34 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs.100/-.
(2.) Heard learned counsel Ms. Komal Mundle holding for Shri Anjan De for the appellants and Shri A.V. Palshikar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
(3.) The learned counsel Ms. Komal Mundle states that Hanmantu Atram has expired during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal stands abated as regards appellant 1-Hanmantu. The learned counsel further states that appellant 2-Shyambai Atram has undergone the period of probation and there is no complaint of breach of the conditions of probation or of having been involved in any untoward incident during the period of probation. The learned counsel Ms. Komal Mundle submits that she is challenging the judgment and order impugned to the extent appellant 3-Subhash is convicted for offence under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation of having assaulted one Sonubai.;


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