Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1252 (BOM)

Chandrakant Balu Kapadi v. State of Maharashtra

2012-07-10

R.C.CHAVAN

body2012
JUDGMENT These two appeals questioning conviction of the appellants in two counter cases are being disposed of by this common Judgment, since the parties in the two cases have tendered their Affidavits stating that they have amicably settled their disputes and want the appeals to be disposed of. The Affidavits are taken on record and marked as 'X' for identification. 2. Facts which are material for deciding these appeals are as under :- The appellant Chandrakant Balu Kapadi in Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 1994 was tried along with his brother Maruti Balu Kapadi and father Balu Rama Kapadi for committing the murder of Anjanabai Kondiba Kapadi and voluntarily causing injuries to Bhika, Kondiba and Rama in an incident which took place on 29th July, 1992 at about 3:00 p.m. at Gat No. 320, Aawasari (Budruk), Pargaon, Taluka Ambegaon, District - Pune. The appellants Gahininath, Khandu, Bhika and Kondiba in Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 1994 were tried for having voluntarily causing hurt with an axe and iron rod to Sushila Balu Kapadi and voluntarily causing hurt to Chandrakant Balu Kapadi in the same incident on 29th July, 1992 at about 3:00 p.m. at Aawasari (Budruk), Pargaon, Taluka Ambegaon, District - Pune. After trying Session Case No. 467 of 1992, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to acquit the co-accused of the offences charged and also acquitted the appellant Chandrakant Balu Kapadi of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He, however, convicted and sentenced Chandrakant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code. Four appellants, who have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 1994 were convicted after trial of Session Case No. 429 of 1993 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each. 3. Parties state that they are from the same family and do not wish to continue the enamity. The learned counsel for the parties state that they do not question the convictions but would restrict the appeals only to question of sentences. 3. Parties state that they are from the same family and do not wish to continue the enamity. The learned counsel for the parties state that they do not question the convictions but would restrict the appeals only to question of sentences. Considering this, since the victim Anjanabai's husband, Kondiba, who is himself an appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 1994 is also present in the Court and since the parties state that parties have amicably settled their disputes without creating a precedent and in peculiar facts of these cases these appeals could be disposed of by reducing the sentence as suggested by the learned counsel for the parties maintaining conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge. 4. Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 1994 is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years is, however, reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months which the appellant claims to have already under gone, with a fine of Rs. l,00,000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for one year. If the fine is paid, the entire amount shall be paid to Kondiba, the husband of the victim. 5. Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 1994 is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year is replaced by payment affine of Rs. 25,000/- each or in default rigorous imprisonment for three months each. If the amount of fine is deposited, it shall be paid equally to the victims. If the fine is not realized within a period of one month, the learned trial Judge shall have the sentences in default of fine executed. Appeals partly allowed.