High Court
Legal Reasoning
Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 2022.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.93 OF 2023Anjabapu Asaram Shinde,Age : 57 years, Occ. Agri.,r/o. Limbejalgaon, Tq. Gangapur,Dist. Aurangabad..AppellantVs.The State of Maharashtra..Respondent----Mr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for appellantMrs.Uma S. Bhosle, APP for respondent - State----ANDCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.539 OF 2022Deelipsing s/o. Kashiram Rajput,Age: 45 years, Occ. Agri.,r/o. Malkapur, Taluka Gangapur,Dist. Aurangabad..AppellantVs.The Stare of Maharashtra..Respondent----Mr.Dhanraj Ingole, Advocate h/f. N.S.Ghanekar, Advocate for appellantMrs.Uma S. Bhosle, APP for respondent - State---- CORAM : R.G.AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 14, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON:NOVEMBER 19, 2024JUDGMENT (Per R.G.Avachat, J.) :-The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order ofconviction and consequential sentence passed on 10.06.2022, by 2Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 2022learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad, inSessions Case No.46 of 2015. The details thereof are given below inthe tabular form:-Sr.No.Name of AppellantConvictionunder SectionPunishment1Anjabapu Asaram Shinde302 of I.P.C. Life imprisonment and topay fine of Rs.10,000/-, indefault, S.I. for 06 months2Deelipsingh Kashiram Rajput201 of I.P.C. R.I. for 3 years and to payfine of Rs.2,000/-, in default,S.I. for 1 month.2.For the sake of convenience, the appellants in both theseappeals are referred to as per their serial number in the Charge(Exh.43), i.e. Anjabapu, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2023,would be referred to as `A1’ and Deelipsingh, appellant in CriminalAppeal No.539 of 2022, would be referred to as `A2’. The State did not prefer an appeal against acquittal of A2of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 ofI.P.C. 3.The facts, in brief, of the prosecution case before the trialcourt are as under:-Both the appellants and Prakash (deceased) were friends.A1 would run a fair-price shop. He had quarrel with one Harish Akbar 3Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 2022Patel, three years before. Prakash was one of the witnesses in thesaid case. A1 did not want Prakash to give evidence in favour ofHairsh Patel. Just a day or two before the incident, said case was onthe board of the court concerned. Prakash had been to the court togive evidence. The case was, however, adjourned. 4.It so happened that on 19.03.2015, by 07.30 p.m., A2came in his Indica car to Limbe-Jalgaon fata. He made a phone callto Prakash (deceased). Prakash came. He took Prakash in the car.Sitaram (PW 2), friend of Prakash, also wanted to join the duo. A2,however, told him that he had urgent work and would drop Pakashoff back within half an hour. As such, both A2 and Prakash,thereafter, went to Gokul Dhaba/Hotel to wine and dine. A1 joinedthem in a while. First, they consumed liquor. A petty quarrel hadensued. A1 assaulted Prakash with a sword. He gave not less thantwo blows with the sword and fled in the darkness. The waiters inthe hotel witnessed the incident. A2 took the sword and threw it inthe dark behind the hotel. Somebody called the ambulance andinformed the police as well. Prakash was rushed to Ghati hospital,Aurangabad. He was declared dead. His nephew – Bharat (PW 1)was informed of the incident. He too rushed to the hospital andthen, lodged the First Information Report (Exh.60). A crime vide C.R. 4Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 2022No.37 of 2015 was registered. Crime-scene panchnama (Exh.104)was drawn. The sword was seized. Inquest and autopsy wasconducted on the mortal remains. The appellants were arrested.The clothes on the person of the deceased and the appellants wereseized besides Indica car and motorcycle as well. Statements of thepersons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the casewere recorded. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheetwas filed. 5.The trial court framed Charge (Exh.43). The appellantspleaded not guilty. Their defence was of false implication. To bringhome the charge, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses andproduced in evidence certain documents. On appreciation of theevidence in the case, the order impugned herein was passed withreasons in support thereof. 6.Heard learned counsel for the parties.7.Learned counsel for A1 would submit that the FIR waslodged by PW 1 – Bharat based on the hearsay information. He thentook us through the evidence of PW 11 – Chandrakala, widow ofdeceased Prakash. He brought to our attention her evidence,
Legal Reasoning
5Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 2022suggesting that Prakash had told A1 that he was going to giveevidence in the case between him and Harish Patel, in accordancewith what he had seen, meaning thereby, he was not going to favourHarish Patel. Learned counsel meant to say that there was nomotive for A1 to do away with Prakash. According to him, one of thewaiters in the hotel claimed to have witnessed the incident inC.C.T.V. footage. No electronic evidence has been tendered in thecase. The other so called eye witnesses examined by the prosecutiondid not know the names of the appellants. The Investigating Officerdid not conduct the test identification parade. He then adverted ourattention to the C.A. reports and submitted that those areinconclusive. Thus, the C.A. reports do not support the prosecutioncase. He would, therefore, submit that the prosecution failed tobring home the charge beyond reasonable doubt.8.Learned counsel for A2 would submit that A2 was not inthe know that the incident was going to happen. Video-clips of theincident were shown to the witnesses, wherein A2 was seen to havethrown the sword in the dark only with a view that the same shall notbe used to assault the deceased. He would further submit that A2was all along present in the hotel. It was he, who lifted the deceasedand put in the ambulance. He then invited our attention to the 6Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 2022evidence of some of the eye witnesses, to indicate that A2 hadpushed A1, so as to prevent him from assaulting Prakash (deceased).He would, therefore, submit that the trial court erred in convictingA2 for the offence under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code.9.Learned APP would, on the other hand, submit that thecase is based on direct evidence. There are not less than four eye-witnesses. The appellants and the deceased were regular customersof the said hotel. The witnesses knew them well since before theincident. The fact that the name of A1 was learnt by the witnessespost incident, would, therefore, be of little consequence. In the factsand circumstances of the case, no test identification parade wasrequired to be held. She would further submit that A2 did throwaway the sword only with an intention to cause disappearance of theevidence. According to learned APP, the trial court has rightlyconvicted the appellants. She relied on the judgment of the ApexCourt in the case of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade vs. State ofMaharashtra, 1973 DGLS (SC) 252. 10.Considered the submissions advanced. Perused theevidence on record. Also perused the judgment impugned herein.Let us advert to the evidence on record and appreciate the same. 7Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 202211.Admittedly, the incident took place by little past 09.00p.m. on 19.03.2015, at Hotel Gokul, whereat, liquor was, admittedly,served. PW 19 – Dr.Ramesh conducted autopsy on the mortalremains of the deceased. He noticed following external injuries andcorresponding internal injuries as well:-External injuries:-01.Stab wound of size 3 cm. x 1.5 cm., cavitydeep, elliptical in shape, horizontally placed withslightly oblique, upper end of injury on right side andlower end of left side, present over the middle of thebody of sternum, situated 8 cm below the sternalnotch, reddish and margins curved and clean-cut andregular with blood infiltration seen.Track of the stab : skin-subcutaneous and soft tissue-body of the sternum-restrosternal muscle –pericardium – right atrium of the heart – right lunganterior border.02.Incised wound of size 7 cm. x 0.2 cm., muscledeep, over the nape of neck, horizontally placed withtailing of 4 cm towards the left, situated 12 cm fromthe occiput, margins clean cut and well defined,reddish.03.Linear abrasion of size 6 x 0.1 cm. horizontallypresent, situated 2 cm from injury No.2 and 4 cm fromleft mastoid region, reddish.04.Linear abrasion of size 4.5 x 0.5 cm. presentobliquely over the right hypochondriac region, reddish.05.Contusion of size 2 cm x 1 cm present over themedical aspect of middle 1/3rd of right arm, bluish red. 8Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 202206.Linear abrasion of size 5 cm. 0.5 cm situated 2cm below injury no.5, dark reddish.07.Contused abrasion of size 0.5 cm, irregularshaped, present over the dorso-lateral aspect of rightwrist dark reddish.Internal injuries:-Thoraxa. Walls, ribs, cartilages Body of sternum – Through andthrough penetrating injury,corresponding to injury no.1 ofcolumn 17, obliquely horizontalbony defect with restrosternalcontusion of the soft tissues.b. PleuraStab injury present on anterioraspect of right pleura,corresponding injury no.1 ofcolumn 17, About 2500 cc ofblood and blood clots present inthe right pleural cavity.c. Larynx, Trachea and BronchiIntact, no foreign bodydetected.d. Right LungStab wound, horizontallysituated of size 2.5 cm. x 1 cm.,parenchymal deep, present overthe anterior aspect of middlelobe of lung. Lung collapsed,displaced upwards and postero-medially; pale.e. Left lung pericardiumIntact, Pale.Stab wound, horizontallypresent on anterior aspect ofsize 2.5 cm. x 1.2 cm.corresponding to the injury no.1in column 17 with hemorrhagessurrounding the stab. 300 cc ofblood and blood clots present inthe pericardial cavityLarge vesselsAdditional remarksContaining blood and bloodclots 9Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 202212.Since Prakash met with homicidal death is a fact provedbefore the trial court and not disputed before us, we do not proposeto refer to the evidence of the witnesses who have deposed inrelation to the inquest panchnama (Exh.114). 13.The question is, whether A1 is author of the crime. TheFIR (Exh.60) was lodged by PW 1 – Bharat. He was not an eyewitness to the incident. The FIR was based on hearsay information.We, therefore, propose to refer to his evidence, which is relevant fordeciding the present appeals. His evidence disclose that he wasserving as a Waiter with Hotel Milan. His duty hours were from 08.00a.m. to 08.00 p.m. Prakash (deceased) was his uncle. He know A1,who too was from village Limbe-Jalgaon. He would run a fair-priceshop. According to him, A2 was Sabhapati of Panchayat Samiti.Both A1 and A2 belonged to a political outfit, “Shiv Sena” and werefriends. Three years prior to the incident, quarrel had taken placebetween A1 and Harish Patel. Harish Patel was accused therein.Prakash (deceased) was one of the witnesses in the said case,pending in the Court, at Vaijapur. A1 thought that Prakash wastaking side of Harish Patel. Just a day or two before the incident, thedate of the court-case was there. Even, Prakash had attended thecourt. The matter was, however, adjourned. The fact that A1 10Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 2022entertained feeling that Prakash was going to take the side of HarishPatel and therefore, he was eliminated, is said to be the motive forthe offence in question. Since the case is based on eye-witnessaccount, we find the alleged motive to be little relevant, although PW11 – Chandrakala, widow of the deceased, had testified that herhusband had assured that he would depose in accordance with whathe had seen, meaning thereby, he would not going to take side ofHarish Patel. Be that as it may.14.The evidence of PW 1 – Bharat, however, disclosed thatHotel Milan, wherein he was working as waiter, was near Limbe-Jalgaon fata. On 19.03.2015, by 07.30 p.m., both Prakash and hisfriend Sitaram (PW2) were taking tea at Venkatesh Tea stall, nearHotel Milan. A2 came in a car. He gave a phone call to Prakash.Prakash went to him and boarded his car. Sitaram too went theresince he wanted to join the duo. The evidence of Sitaram (PW 2)disclosed that A2 told him that he had some urgent work and hewould drop Prakash Off back within half an hour. Sitaram (PW 2),therefore, did not join them. Thus, the evidence on record indicatesthat A2 drove Prakash directly to Hotel Gokul. A1 joined them after awhile. 11Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 202215.PW 3 – Kishor, who was working as a Waiter in HotelGokul, testified that both the appellants and deceased Prakash usedto visit Gokul Hotel, regularly. According to him, the trio came toGokul Hotel between 08.00 pm. and 09.00 p.m. on 19.03.2015. Thetrio sat at a table in the family-garden of the hotel. They ordered forwine and soda. The evidence further disclosed that the trio weretalking about the court case. They took drinks for half an hour andpaid the bill for Rs.520/-. He returned the balance amount. After awhile, he heard shouts. He, therefore, rushed towards the placewhereat the trio were sitting. He saw A1 was talking on phone. Hethen went to the kitchen. He then heard shouts of Prakash. He,therefore, went thereat. C.C.T.V. footage facility was available in thehotel. He saw in the C.C.T.V. footage that A1 inflicted blow on theneck of Prakash with sword. Prakash, thereby, fell down. He alsosaw A1 gave second blow on the chest of Prakash with the verysword. Prakash removed the sword and handed it over to A1.Thereafter, A2 threw the same to the backside of the hotel. A phonecall was, thereafter, made to the ambulance service. It was furtherdisclosed from his evidence that when he came back towards thekitchen room and was standing near Ganesh and Ajay (waiters), hesaw A1 came from bathroom and assaulted Prakash with sword on 12Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 2022his neck and again inflicted blow of sword on the chest of Prakash.A1 then disappeared in the darkness after having seen them.16.Statement of PW 3 – Kishor, recorded under Section 164of the Code of Criminal Procedure was referred to him. It is atExh.72. He was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination. Hisattention was adverted to a sentence in his statement under Section164 of Cr.P.C., that he had learnt the name of the assailant asAnjabapu after the incident. According to him, it was wronglywritten. His attention was also adverted to the portion marked as “A”,appearing in his police statement. According to him, said sentencewas correctly recorded. It was, therefore, marked as Exh.71. In thestatement, he had stated that "अंजाबापू हे नाव घटना घडल्यानंतर मला समजले”.Learned APP in-charge of the case had referred to this witness to hisstatement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. in his examination-in-chief.This witnesses testified the entire statement to have been stated byhim. Close reading of said statement would indicate the same to beso brief. The contents thereof are as under:-…………साक्षीदाराच्या शपथेवर जबाब सुरु तितघे जण हॉटेल मध्ये आले. त्यांनी तिड&ंक केली. त्या हॉटेल मध्ये मी वेटरम्हणून काम करतो. त्या हॉटेलचे नाव गोकुळ आहे. तिड&ंक केल्यानंतर त्यांनी 13Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 2022बिबल पेड केले. बिबल पेड केल्यानंतर त्यांचे मध्ये भांडण झाले. अंजाबापुनीप्रकाश अलोणे यांचेवर तलवारीसारखे धारधार शस्त्राने वर केला. प्रकाशअलोणे हे जबिमनीवर पडले. त्यानंतर ऍम्ब्युलन्स - १०८ ले फोन केला.तसेच पो. स्टे. ला फोने केला. पोलीस तेथे आले. प्रकाश अलोने याना मीओळखून होतो. ते आमचे नेहमीचे कस्टमर होते. अंजाबापू हे नाव घटनाघडल्यानंतर मला समजले 17.One need not state importance of the statementrecorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., although most of the evidencein the examination-in-chief, did not find place in the statement underSection 164 of Cr.P.C., The fact remains that the said statementcontains material part of the incident and the same therebyreinforces the oral evidence of PW 3 – Kishor. Although this witness,initially, stated to have witnessed the incident in the C.C.T.V. footage,in the next paragraph, he claimed to have witnessed while he wasnear the other two witnesses and A1 returned from the bathroom ofhotel. It appears that this witness was cross-examined with referenceto his police statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Be thatas it may. He was also cross-examined on behalf of A2. He admittedin his examination-in-chief that both Prakash and A2 sat on thechairs adjoining to each other. They were talking like friends. A2was present in the hotel even post incident, that too, until the policehad arrived and even thereafter. He admitted that A1 had pushedA2 aside when A2 had initially pushed him away. He went on to 14Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 2022admit to have seen A2 had intervened to rescue Prakash when hewas being assaulted. The sword was stuck in the chest of Prakashafter the second blow. Prakash himself removed the sword andgave it to A2, who, in turn, threw it away. This witness was shownvideo-clip of the incident. What was appearing therein was admittedby him. The same is as under:-“A scuffle had taken place between thedeceased and the assailant. A2 was seento have intervened to save the deceased.Then it is seen that A2 and other witnesseslifted the deceased for placing him in theambulance.” 18.We are conscious of the fact that what has been recordedin the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. would not be asubstantial evidence.19.PW 4 – Ajay was another waiter in the very hotel. Hisevidence is on the lines of PW 3 – Kishor. According to him, both theaccused persons before the court and the deceased were theirregular customers. Little past 9 p.m., he heard shouts from thetable, which was being attended to by waiter Kishor (PW 3). Healong with the other waiters, therefore, rushed towards that table. 15Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 2022He saw that Prakash was lying on the ground. He saw scufflebetween A1 and A2. A1 assaulted Prakash with sword. After havingseen them, A1 disappeared in the darkness behind the bathroom.Prakash removed the sword and handed it over to him. A2 took itfrom him and threw in the darkness. Somebody had informed thepolice and the ambulance service provider as well. Prakash wasthereafter shifted to the hospital.20.PW 4 – Ajay too was subjected to searching cross-examination. In paragraph 6 of the cross-examination, it wassuggested that there were 4-5 tables near the table where A1 wassitting. As such, presence of A1 at the hotel at the relevant time hasbeen admitted much less fortified. He admitted that he had notattended the trio in the hotel in the past. He was further suggestedthat after hearing the shouts, he had rushed towards the place ofincident and others followed him. He denied the suggestion thatwhen Prakash was lying on the ground, A1 was not present. Even,this suggestion goes a long way that after the assault, A1 took toheels. He was confronted with his statement under Section 164 ofCr.P.C., wherein, it was suggested to him that A1 was not there whilehe reached on hearing of shouts. Taken the said piece of evidenceas it is, the logical answer can be drawn that no sooner A1 assaulted 16Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 2022Prakash with sword, he disappeared/ran away. This statement(Exh.92) was also referred to in the examination-in-chief by thewitnesses, wherein, presence of three customers at the crime-scenehas been brought on record. It means that the examination-in-chiefof PW 4 – Ajay reinforces the case that the trio had come to the hoteland took seat in the garden area of the hotel.21.PW 5 – Ganesh was another waiter in the very hotel. Hetestified that at the relevant time, the appellants and deceasedPrakash visited the hotel. He saw scuffle between A1 and A2. A1pushed A2 aside. A1 then inflicted blow on the chest of Prakash withsword. After having seen him, A1 ran away. He too was subjected tosearching cross-examination. The statements of the waiters appearto have been recorded within two days of the incident. He wasconfronted with his statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. to bringon record very many omissions. True, the statement under section164 of Cr.P.C. is in brief. Learned counsel, however, did not cross-examine this witness with reference to his police statement.22.PW 7 – Rajendra was Manager of the hotel. His evidencedisclosed that first, A2 and Prakash came to the hotel. Within tenminutes, A1 joined them. The trio sat in the garden area of the 17Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 2022hotel. Kishor (PW 3), waiter, was attending them. On having learntfrom Kishor that Prakash was injured, this witness went to the spot.Prakash was lying on the ground. He had suffered injuries to hischest and neck. He did not speak about the presence of Anjabapu.Same suggests that Anjabapu immediately ran away. Had Anjabapubeen innocent and had not been involved in the crime, he had noreason to take to his heels. It was the Manager (PW 7 - Rajendra)who contacted the ambulance service provider. Ambulance arrived.Prakash was shifted to the hospital. Police too were informed. Theycame. In his presence, the crime-scene panchnama (Exh.104) wasdrawn.23.The aforesaid is the evidence of the material witnessesexamined in the case. Although 25 witnesses were examined five ofthem namely 14, 15, 17 and 18 were police constables, who carriedthe seized articles to the F.S.L. Kalina and F.S.L., Aurangabad. Two ofthe witnesses were panchas to the inquest panchnama. Some otherwitnesses pertain to the disclosure statement made by both theappellants. One pertain to the disclosure statement made by A2,pursuant to which, his clothes came to be seized from the car. Saiddisclosure statement and panchnama find place at Exh.99 and theseizure panchnama at Exh.99-A; while, pursuant to the disclosure 18Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 2022statement made by A1, clothes on his person at the time ofcommission of crime, came to be seized from the heap of fodderfrom a particular place. It is at Exh.107 and Exh.110. Exh.107 is thememorandum statement. It was proved based on the evidence ofPW 8 - Santosh. PW 10 – Atul is another witness to the crime-scenepanchnama (Exh.104). PW 21 - Wasim, PW 22 – Sanjay and PW 23 -Ashok are the police officials, who did investigation of the crime.24.The C.A. reports did not further the prosecution case.However, the fact is that human blood was notice on the seizedsword, i.e. an incriminating circumstance.25.Appreciation of the evidence referred to herein aboveindicates that both the appellants and Prakash (deceased) hadvisited the hotel by little past 8:00 in the evening on the fateful day.They consumed liquor there. The evidence of the waiters referred toherein above indicates that their presence in the hotel was admitted.Their evidence further indicates that they had seen A1 assaultingPrakash with a sword. As a result of the assault and the injuriessuffered by Prakash, he succumbed thereto. As such, it was theassault made by A1 with an intention to do away with Prakash. Thetrial court has rightly convicted A1 for the offence punishable underSection 302 of I.P.C. 19Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 202226.The question is, whether in the facts and circumstancesof the case, conviction of A2 is sustainable in the eye of law. Theanswer thereto would be, a big “No”. For better appreciation, wepropose to reproduce Section 201 of I.P.C :-201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, orgiving false information to screen offender.— Whoever,knowing or having reason to believe that an offencehas been committed, causes any evidence of thecommission of that offence to disappear, with theintention of screening the offender from legalpunishment, or with that intention gives anyinformation respecting the offence which he knows orbelieves to be false;if a capital offence.— shall, if the offence which heknows or believes to have been committed ispunishable with death, be punished with imprisonmentof either description for a term which may extend toseven years, and shall also be liable to fine;if punishable with imprisonment for life.— and if theoffence is punishable with imprisonment for life, orwith imprisonment which may extend to ten years,shall be punished with imprisonment of eitherdescription for a term which may extend to threeyears, and shall also be liable to fine;if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.—and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment forany term not extending to ten years, shall be punishedwith imprisonment of the description provided for theoffence, for a term which may extend to one-fourthpart of the longest term of the imprisonment providedfor the offence, or with fine, or with both. 20Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 202227.The evidence on record indicates that A2 had evenpushed A1 with a view to prevent him from making assault onPrakash. After removal of the sword, A2 threw it into the darkness.Same has to be taken as with a view that the same shall not bereused. A1 disappeared from the crime scene. A2 remained thereall along, even post arrival of the police. It was A2 who took thepolice to the back side of the hotel and then, the sword was seized.The act of A2 in throwing the sword would, in no way, could beconstrued to have been done with an intention to causedisappearance of the evidence, so as to screen A1 from legalpunishment. In our view, the trial court erred in convicting A2.Interference with the impugned order so far as regards convictionand consequential sentence imposed against A2 is, therefore,warranted. 28.In the result, the appeal preferred by A1 fails and theappeal preferred by A2 succeeds. Hence, the following order:-(i)Criminal Appeal No.93 of 2023 preferred by appellant -Anjabapu Asaram Shinde is dismissed;(ii)Criminal Appeal No.539 of 2022 preferred by appellant -Deelipsing s/o. Kashiram Rajput is allowed. The impugned order 21Cri Appeal Nos.93 of 2023 and 539 of 2022dated 10.06.2022, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-1,Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No.46 of 2015,convicting and sentencing the appellant – Deelipsing, for the offencepunishable under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code, is set aside. Heis acquitted of the said offence. Fine amount paid by appellant –Deelipsing, if any, be refunded to him. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.][R.G. AVACHAT, J.] KBP