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

2017 Supreme(Bom) 1521

ROHIT B.DEO
Zabarsingh Pilya Bhilala – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Respondent: N.B. Jawade, Addl. P.P.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant seeks to assail the judgment and order dated 05-5-2004, delivered by the IIIrd Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial 80/1997, by and under which the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “accused”) is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years, five years and seven years respectively for the aforesaid offences in addition to payment of fine of Rs.500/- for each offence.

2. The accused faced trial along with Anarsingh Jagan More, Bhumsingh Chhotu Masniya and Mansingh Shekdya Waskalya. Anarsingh More absconded and at the instance of the other accused, the trial was separated. The other two accused Bhumsingh and Mansingh are convicted for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The record reveals that the learned Counsel appointed to represent the accused has not collected the paper-book. The learned Counsel appointed to represent the accused is absent when the appeal is called out for hearing. Since the learned Counsel has not even collected the paper-book, it is obvi



















































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