Criminal Appeal No. 508 of 2014. Case: Mohammad Azad Baharammiya Khan Vs The State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No. 508 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sarojini Upadhyay, Advocate and For Respondents: V.R. Bhonsale, A.P.P. |
| Judges | V. K. Tahilramani, Actg. C.J. and Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 302, 307, 34; Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(10), 3(2)(5) |
| Judgement Date | January 05, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
V. K. Tahilramani, Actg. C.J.
-
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-original accused against the judgment and order dated 10.3.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag in Spl.Criminal Case No. 10 of 2013. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 307 r.w. 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. For the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC & under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- i/d R.I. for one year. For the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellant has been sentenced to R.I. for ten years and fine of Rs.1000/- i/d R.I. for one year. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. It may be stated here that the appellant came to be acquitted of the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
-
The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under:
(i) PW 1 Rajesh was a plumbing contractor. He had five workers i.e. PW 2 Pradeep, Ramesh, Abdul, Kuldeep (deceased) and appellant Mohammad Azad. The appellant was staying alone in one room on the first floor of Swaraj Emperor building and the other four workers including deceased Kuldeep and PW 2 Pradeep, were residing in another room on the first floor of the very same building.
(ii) On 18.3.2010 the appellant and absconding accused Abdul went to the ground floor. Kuldeep, PW 2 Pradeep and Ramesh had dinner and went to sleep. Thereafter at about mid-night Pradeep heard shouts of Kuldeep. Pradeep was awaken. He saw Abdul was holding a wooden bar (Danduka) and the appellant was holding a spade (Fawada). The appellant gave blow on the head of Pradeep. Pradeep saw that Kuldeep was lying in a pool of blood. Pradeep then came and told watchman to give a telephone call to their employer. The watchman then telephoned employer i.e. PW 1 Rajesh. Rajesh then came to the spot. He saw that Kuldeep was lying in a pool of blood. He also saw that Pradeep had sustained injury. Rajesh then made enquiry with Pradeep. Rajesh then went to police station and lodged...
To continue reading
Request your trial