SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Bom) 2561

ABHAY M.THIPSAY
Raju @ Ajit Sarfraj Tadvi, Shantaram Manil Sonawane, Dhanraj Parashuram Chaudhari – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anita Agarwal.
For the Respondent: Deepak Thakre.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay M. Thipsay, J.

1. The appellants were prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under Sections 120B of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 342 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 292 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 385 IPC read with Section 34, Section 355 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 351 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. After holding a trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant No. 1 guilty of all the aforesaid offences and convicted him accordingly. She, however, held appellant Nos. 2 and 3 guilty only of the offences punishable under Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 342 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, and convicted them accordingly. The learned Additional Sessions Judge imposed the following sentences on the appellants:-

Offence punishable under Section

Sentence

Section 452 IPC read with Section 34 IPC

Appella





































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top