JUDGMENT/ORDER

BHARAT P.DESHPANDE, J. - All the above Appeals are taken up for disposal together as the Appellants/Accused persons are challenging the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 42 of 2013.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2022 (F) is filed by Abhinandan @ Raj Patel (Accused No. 2), Criminal Appeal No. 702 of 2022 (F) is filed by Anil Bhoe (Accused No. 3), Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2023 is filed by Aniket Yallurkar (Accused No. 7) and Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2023 is filed by Ravi Patil (Accused No. 4) and Arun Patil (Accused No. 5).

3. In Sessions Case No. 42 of 2013, in all, seven Accused persons were tried for the offence punishable under Ss. 120B, 302, 397 and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, the IPC). By the impugned judgment dtd. 16/8/2022, the learned Sessions Judge, acquitted Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 6 of all the charges and convicted Accused Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 for the offence punishable under Ss. 120B, 302, 397 and 201 of the IPC. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced all the said convicted Accused persons for the offence punishable under Ss. 120B and 302 of the IPC, to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1.00 lakh and in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years. Similarly, all the said convicted Accused persons were sentenced to suffer ten years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50, 000.00 and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of two years for the offence punishable under Sec. 397 of the IPC. As far as Sec. 201 of the IPC is concerned, all the convicted Accused persons were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.25, 000.00 and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one a period of one year. Surprisingly, there is no mention about any set off against the period already undergone during the trial as provided under Sec. 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.). There is also no mention as to whether all the sentences shall run concurrently. No reason is forthcoming on both of these aspects in the judgment.

4. As far as the acquittal of Accused Nos. 1 and 6 is concerned, the State preferred an Application for leave to appeal, which was also taken upon simultaneously along with the present Appeals. However, we propose to pass separate orders on that Application for leave to appeal since the parameters for grant of leave to appeal as compared to the aspect of the challenge raised to the conviction are totally different.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:

5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective Accused persons at length. We have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Bhobe appearing for the State in all these Appeals. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the Accused persons and that of the learned Public Prosecutor, we have extensively gone through the paper book and more specifically, the evidence as well as the documents relied upon by the Prosecution and discussed by the learned Sessions Judge while convicting the respective Appellants.

6. The main contention as raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellants/Accused persons is that the