VIJAY BHIVAJIRAO PALANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-53
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on June 29,2017

Vijay Bhivajirao Palande Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. - (1.) By this appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment and order dated 11 th, 12th, 13th, 16th and 17th December, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No. 1321 of 1998, convicting and sentencing him as under: A. for the offence punishable under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'), to suffer RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default, to suffer SI for 6 months; ? for the offence punishable under Section 364 of the IPC, to suffer RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default, to suffer SI for 6 months; B. for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to suffer SI for 1 year; C. for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC, to suffer RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer SI for 6 months; D. for the offence punishable under Section 404 of the IPC, to suffer RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer SI for 3 months; All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant was, however, acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 420, 465, 469 and 471 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge by the same judgment and order, was pleased to acquit co-accused Emad Ahmed Hudib/Hudaib @ David John D'Souza @ Jackie (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'David'), of all the offences with which he was charged. The State has not preferred an appeal against his acquittal.
(2.) Before adverting to the actual facts of the case, it is pertinent to note, that the appellant and the co-accused David were arrested in 2 cases. They were arrested in connection with C.R. No. 100 of 1998 registered with the D. N. Nagar Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 364, 302, 201, 364A, 404, 420, 465, 469, 471 r/w 34 of the IPC, where the principal allegations against the appellant and David, were of abducting and murdering Swaraj Ranjan Das (present case). The very same accused i.e. appellant and David were also arrested in connection with C.R. No. 400 of 1998 registered with the Juhu Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 464, 302, 201, 364A r/w 34 of the IPC, where the principal allegations again, were of abducting and murdering Anup Ranjan Das, son of Swaraj Ranjan Das. Two separate CRs were registered, although the accused in both the CRs were the same, as deceased-Swaraj Ranjan Das, residing within the jurisdiction of D. N. Nagar Police Station, went missing from there, whereas, deceased Anup residing within the jurisdiction of Juhu Police Station, went missing from within the said jurisdiction. It is also pertinent to note, that although separate charge-sheets were filed in both the C.Rs., common evidence was led in both the said cases. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai by a separate judgment and order passed in S.C.No.1320 of 1998 was pleased to acquit the appellant and David, of all the charges including the principal charge of causing the death of Anup Ranjan Das. (The said case arose out of C.R. No. 400 of 1998, registered with the Juhu Police Station). It may be noted, that the State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the appellant and David in the said case i.e. Sessions Case No. 1320 of 1998 (Juhu Case). Hence, we are concerned only with Sessions Case No. 1321 of 1998 in which the appellant has been convicted as aforesaid in para 1. As noted earlier, no appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of David from the said Session Case i.e. S.C.No.1321 of 1998.
(3.) Although, in the present appeal before us, we are concerned only with the conviction of the appellant for the murder of Swaraj Ranjan Das, it would be necessary while dealing with the prosecution case, to set out the entire prosecution case, including the allegations against the appellant vis-a-vis Anup Ranjan Das, as the facts are overlapping and as common evidence was led in both the Sessions cases.;


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