[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPEAL NO.453 OF 1999 1. Atmaram Ramchandra Pawar ] Age about 52 years, ] 2. Ananda Maruti Pawar, ] Age about 53 years, ] 3. Shripati Maruti Pawar, ] Age about 59 years, ] 4. Shankar Ramchandra Lotale ] Age 46 years ] 5. Jaywant Sitaram Pawar ] Age 27 years ] 6. Nathuram Bhau Pawar ] Age 43 years, ] 7. Uttam Ramchandra Pawar ] Age 42 years, ] 8. Bapurao Shantaram Pawar ] Age 30 years ] 9. Ashok Maruti Pawar ] Age 33 years ] 10. Tukaram Kesu Pawar ] Age 51 years ] 11. Ganpati Kesu Pawar ] Age 44 years ] 12. Laxman Rau Pawar ] Age 41 years ] 13. Jagu Ninu Pawar ] Age 46 years ] 14. Nana Dhondi Pawar ] Age 78 years ] 15. Sundarabai Maruti Pawar ] Age 86 years ] 16. Sunita Yashwant Pawar ] Age 38 years ] 17. Shevantabai Anandrao Pawar ] Age 52 years ] 18. Alaka Ashok Pawar ] Age 38 years ] 19. Tarubai Pandurang Pawar ] Age 44 years ] 20. Parubai alias Parvati ] Sitaram Pawar ] Age 51 years ] 21. Draupadabai Ganpat Pawar, ] Age 59 years ] 22. Laxmibai rajaram Pawar ] Age 37 years ] [-2-] 23. Savitrabai Shankar Lotale ] Age 41 years ] 24. Suman Ramchandra Dangare ] Age 39 years ] 25. Anjana Baliram Pawar ] Age 46 years ] 26. Hirabai Yashwant Pawar ] Age 39 years ] 27. Shalan Tukaram Pawar ] Age 43 years ] 28. Leelabai Daulat Pawar ] Age 44 years ] 29. Banabai Tukaram Pawar ] Age 39 years ] 30. Hirabai Bhau More, ] Age 59 years ] 31. Anusaya Laxman Pawar ] Age 39 years ] 32. Dhondabai Bhau Pawar ] (deceased) ] 33. Shalan Sampat Pawar ] Age 33 years ] 34. Parubai Vasant Pawar ] Age 35 years ] 35. Savitra Mohan Pawar ] Age 36 years ] 36. Sanjana Vitthal Pawar ] Age 30 years ] 37. Darupada Ganpat Pawar ] Age 37 years ] All are resident of Kokisare ] Tal.Patan, Dist.Satara ]..Appellants Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra ] 2. Bahiru Pujari ] Resident of Kokisare, ] Tal.Patan, Dist.Satara ]..Respondents .... Mr.V.V.Salunkhe Advocate for Appellants Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 [-3-] ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The Appellants-original accused have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.7.1999 passed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge Satara in Sessions Case No. 225 of 1993. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants nos.1 to 31 and 33 to 37 under Section 379 and 447 of IPC. For the offence under Section 379 of IPC, the appellants were directed to be released on their entering into bond of Rs.1000/- each with one surety to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years from today and in the meantime, not to enter gat No.851-B of village Kokisare, Taluka Patan and to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. For the offence under Section 447 of IPC, all the appellants were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.400/- each i/d SI for 30 days. 2. I have heard the learned advocate for the appellants and the learned APP for the Respondent-State. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence. [-4-] 3. The learned advocate for the appellants submitted he does not want to argue the matter for acquittal and his only prayer is that the appellants should also be called upon to enter into bond of good behaviour for the offence under Section 447 of IPC as directed under Section 379 of IPC. He has further submitted that the incident arose on account of dispute relating to the property bearing Gat No. 815/A and 815/B situated at village Kokisare Taluka Patan. 4. The learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the offence under Section 379 of IPC is of more serious nature than the offence under Section 447 of IPC. The offence under Section 379 attracts imprisonment upto 3 years whereas offence under Section 447 of IPC attracts term of imprisonment which may extend to three months. The offence under Section 447 of IPC is also punishable only with fine. It is submitted that in such case under section 447 of IPC, the accused persons ought to have been called upon to enter into a bond as directed under Section 379 of IPC. The learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the only [-5-] prayer of the appellants is that same punishment ought to be given under Section 447 of IPC as given under Section 379 of IPC which is of more serious nature than the offence under Section 447 of IPC. The learned APP has no objection to the same. In this view of the matter, the conviction and the sentence is maintained. However, the punishment under Section 447 of IPC is altered to the same as that awarded under Section 379 of IPC to the appellants. 5. In the result, the conviction of the appellants under Section 447 and 379 of IPC vide judgment and order dated 27.7.1999 passed by the learned IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.255 of 1993, is maintained. The punishment under Section 379 of IPC i.e. appellants be released on their entering into bond of good behaviour is also maintained. The punishment under Section 447 of IPC is altered and under Section 447 of IPC the appellants are directed to be released on their entering into a bond of Rs.1000/- each with one surety to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years from today and in the meantime, not to enter Gat [-6-] No.851-B of village Kokisare, Taluka Patan and to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 6. Appeal is partly allowed accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]