- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed four appeals which arose out of a common decision against them. All four accused before the High Court were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmad Nagar. Learned trial judge had held all the four accused persons to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 396, 506, 341, 379 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentenced each of them to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation in respect of conviction relatable to Section 396 IPC read with Section 120 B IPC. Learned trial judge was of the view that offence relatable to Sections 506 and 341 IPC is covered by the main offence and no separate sentence was required to be passed. So far as offence relatable to Section 379 read with Section 120 B IPC is concerned, each of the accused persons was sentenced to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. Accused No. 4 i.e. present appellant alone was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 5 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1950 ( in short the 'Arms Act') and was further sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation. It was also recorded that offence under Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act is covered under Section 5 read with Section 27 of the said Act and therefore, no separate sentence was passed.
(3.) Challenge to the judgment before the High Court in the four appeals did not yield any relief.;