The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of united or concerted action for liability in the offence of dacoity under Section 395 of the I.P.C.

1. The appellant, who is the original accused no.2, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 333, 395 and 397 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.29 of 2001. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default further S.I. for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the I.P.C. For the offences punishable under Sections 333 and 395 he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default S.I. for one year and 3 months on each count. For the offence punishable under Section 397 of the I.P.C., he was separately sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default S.I. for 15 months.

2. At the outset, it may be stated that in view of conviction of the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 397 and a sentence of R.I. for 2 years only, which is less than minimum prescribed by the law, this Court had issued a Suo-Motu notice to the accused/appellant to show cause why the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the I.P.C. should not be enhanced. The present appeal and Suo-Motu application shall be decided and disposed off by this common judgment.

3. To state in brief, prosecution case is that one Rajya Kale son of accused no.1 Ambrushi Kale was wanted in crime no.14 of 1999 registered at Police Station Vairag, Taluka: Barshi. P.W.11 P.C.Karimulla Patel, P.W.8 P.C.Uttam Chavan and P.C.Patil were on duty at weekly bazar at Vairag for the maintenance of law and order on 2-8-2000. On that day, P.C.Karimulla received information from informer Chandrakant Shinde that the wanted accused Rajya Kale had taken shelter in a Pal, which means a group of huts inhabitated by Paradhi community, belonging to his father Ambrushi Kale. Therefore, P.C.Karimulla alongwith P.C.Chavan , P.C.Patil and informer Chandrakant Kale left Vairag to go to said Pal. They reached village Mungashi on their motorcycles and from there they also requested P.W.2 Jarichand Kshirsagar and others to accompany them. Accordingly, this team reached near the land of one Lahu Mote where the wanted accused Rajya Kale had taken shelter. According to the prosecution, when the police party reached near the huts, all the accused nos.1 to 8 started shouting and raising hue and cry. Due to this Jarichand and others, who had joined the police party from village Mungashi ran away. The accused persons rushed towards the police constables with deadly weapons like sticks, axes, sickles called kattis and caused injuries to P.C.Karimulla, P.C.Chavan and P.C.Patil. In the said incident some of the accused persons robbed Constable Karimulla of his valuable articles and some of the accused also robbed P.C.Chavan. During the incident P.C.Patil escaped from the clutches of the accused persons and from village Valuj, he gave telephonic message to Vairag Police Station, after which necessary police force was deputed. Injured police constables were taken to the hospital. P.C.Karimulla lodged a report Exhibit 25 about this incident on the basis of which crime no.222 of 2000 came to be registered against 8 accused persons. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against eight accused persons.

4. It may be noted that out of 8 accused persons, accused no.2 Bhalkya, who is the present appellant is a son of Ambrushi Kale and brother of wanted accused Rajya Kale. Accused No.3 Surekha is wife of the appellant/accused no.2, accused nos.4 to 6 appear to be sons of the accused no.1 Ambrushi, accused nos.7 and 8, who are ladies also appear to be the members of the family. Rajya Kale is not one of the 8 accused persons. Accused nos.4 to 8 were shown to be absconding and only accused nos.1 to 3 were actually put to trial. Accused no.3 wa