A.P.BHANGALE
Tukaram Govind Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
1. Both these appeal and revision are preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 6.7.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.49 of 1996 whereby the learned trial Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code and directed the accused to suffer S.I. for one year and fine of Rs.300/- in default S.I. for one month. By the said order, considering the age of the accused, he was directed to be released under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. on giving a bond of good behaviour of one year in the sum of Rs.5000/- with a surety in the like amount.
2. While the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.506 of 1996 challenges his conviction under Section 376 read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code, the revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No.29 of 1997 contended that the sentence imposed was inadequate considering the nature of offence held as proved by the learned trial Judge.
3. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that : first informant Parvatibai Yadav and the accused are resident of village Sonarwadi and used to reside in that village when the incident
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.