2021:BHC-AS:12189-DB rkmore IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.256 OF 2012 Lalit Timothi D’souza ] Age : 42 years, ] R/o 17 Gunbow Street, Fort, ]

Mumbai – 400 001. ] .. Appellant vs.

1. The State of Maharashtra ]

At the instance of Senior Inspector ] of Police, Cuffe Parade Police Station ] Vide their FIR No.181 of 2007. ]

2. Ms. Laurna Timoti D’souza ]

Age : 46 years, ] R/o 71, Sainara, 17 Cuffe Parade, ]

Mumbai – 400 005. ] .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.740 OF 2012 The State of Maharashtra ] (Through Cuffe Parade Police Station ]

CR No.181 of 2007) ] .. Appellant vs.

Lalit Timothi D’souza ] R/o 17 Gunbow Street, Fort, ]

Mumbai – 400 001. ] .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.741 OF 2012 Ms.Lorna daughter of Timothy D’souza ] presently 45 years, residing at ] 71, Sainara, 17, Cuffe Parade, ]

Mumbai – 400 005. ] ..Appellant vs.

1. Lalit s/o Timothy D’souza, ]

Presently 42 years, having place of ] business and also his place of ] residence at 17, Gunbow Street, ] Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. ] Presently on bail, pursuant to order ] dated 13.3.2012 passed in Criminal ]

Application no.354 of 2012 in ] ..Respondent NO.1 Criminal Appeal No.256 of 2012 ] (Org. Accused)

2. The State of Maharashtra ]

(Through Inspector of Police, ]

Cuffe Parade Police station ] ..Respondent No.2 pursuant to registration of CR No.181/2007)](Org.Complainant)

WITH SUO-MOTU PETITION NO.1 OF 2021 High Court On Its Own Motion ] .. Petitioner vs.

Lalit Timoti D’souza ] .. Respondents Mr.Sudip Pasbola a/w Mr. Rahul Arote for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.256/2012 and for respondent in all connected appeals.

Mr. Ashok Bhatia a/w Mr. Narayan Kumar for respondent No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.256/2012 and for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.741/2012.

Mrs.Geeta Mulekar, APP for State/Respondent NO.1 in Criminal Appeal No.256/2012 and for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 740/2012.

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &

N.R.BORKAR, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 16.08.2021 PRONOUNCED ON : 13.09.2021 COMMON JUDGMENT : (PER : N.R.BORKAR, J)

1] The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.256/2012 was an accused before the trial Court in Sessions Case No.140 of 2008. In the said Sessions Case, the accused was tried for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act (for short “Arms Act”). By the Judgment and order dated 1^st February, 2012, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and under Section 30 of the Arms Act. The trial Court instead convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1 Lakh and in default of payment of fine to suffer further imprisonment of six months.

2] Criminal Appeal No.256 of 2012 is filed by the accused challenging his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the IPC. Whereas, Criminal Appeal No.740/2012 and 741/2012 are filed by the State and victim respectively against acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and under Section 30 of the Arms Act.

3] This court, while admitting the Appeal filed by the accused has passed the following order on 13^th March, 2012 :

“Considering the nature of the offence and the manner in which it is committed, I am of the considered opinion that, the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment imposed on the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C. is grossly inadequate. Therefore, the appellant is called upon to show cause as to why the substantive sentence imposed on him should not be enhanced.”

4] Suo Motu Petition No.1 of 2021 came to be registered pursuant to above said order of this Court.

5] Considering the fact that all the matters take exception to one and the same Judgment, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

6] The allega