V.K.TAHILRAMANI, I.K.JAIN
State of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Ananda Shiva Sutar – Respondent
I.K. Jain, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 642 of 1992 arises out of the Judgment and Order dated 30/06/1992 passed by the learned 5th Assistant Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 114 of 1991. By the said Judgment and Order, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 of the offences under Section 330 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 also, of the offences under Sections 167, 177, 217, 218 and 201 IPC. By the very same Judgment and Order, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 for the offence under Section 365 of IPC and sentenced each of them to R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Respondent No. 8 was convicted for the offence under Section 342 of IPC and instead of sentencing him at once, the learned Judge released him on probation of good conduct on bond of Rs. 5,000/- with surety for two years.
2. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the sentence imposed against the above Respondents, the State of Maharashtra has sought enhancement of sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 643 of 1992.
3. Dur
Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh: (2008) 10 SCC 450 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 60
Vide Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn. : (1984) 4 SCC 635 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 131: AIR 1984 SC 1805
Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad: (2001) 1 SCC 501
Aruvelu Arulvelu v. State: (2009) 10 SCC 206
Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P.: (2009) 10 SCC 636 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 372.
Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police and Ors.: (1999) 2 SCC 10 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 429 : AIR 1999 SC 677
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.