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

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1071

PRASANNA B.VARALE, SURENDRA P.TAVADE
Sanjay Uttam Suryavanshi – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Daulat G Khamkar, Advocate, M.M. Deshmukh, Advocate

JUDGMENT

 

Surendra P. Tavade, J. - Both these appeals are arisen out of the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, District- Nasik, in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2009 dated 12th October 2011. Hence, both these appeals are taken together for hearing.

2. Original Accused No. 1 has preferred an appeal bearing No. 1470 of 2011. By the judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2009, the Appellant (in 1470 of 2011) has been convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment, he was directed to undergo RI for two months. He along with Original Accused Nos. 2 to 4 have been also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 498(A) and sentenced to suffer RI for two years each and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, all of them have been directed to undergo RI for one month. But Original Accused Nos. 2 to 4 did not prefer an appeal against the said conviction order. The Appellant and other co-accused have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) read with 34 of IPC, similarly Original Accused

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