1 Cri. Appeal No. 121.98 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 121 OF 1998 1] Meghavarn @ Meghraj Narsingh Vaikar, Age 22 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Sonegaon, Ta. Jamkhed, District Ahmednagar. 2] Kalish S/o Mahadeo Jadhav,Age 34 years Occupation Agriculture R/o as above. .. Appellants V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra, copy to be served on Public Prosecutor High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. .. Respondent Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi Advocate holding for Mr.M.Y.Deshmukh,Advocate for the Appellants Mr.D.R.Korde,A.P.P. for the respondent-State CORAM: A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 24TH MARCH, 2010 PER COURT 1] The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants sought to withdraw the Appeal filed by the appellant No.1. He produced before this Court a letter sent to him, by the appellant No.1. The said letter is taken on record and marked as “X”. Thus, the Appeal stands dismissed, as far as appellant no.1 is concerned. 2] The Appeal is filed against the Judgment and 2 Cri. Appeal No. 121.98 order passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge-2 Ahmednagar in Sessions Case no. 290 of 1996 dated 10th November, 1997. The appellant No.2 was original accused no.30 in the sessions Case. The appellants and 58 others were charge-sheeted pursuant to the crime registered by Jamkhed Police Station, for the offences punishable under sections 307, 324 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code or in the alternative under sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 353, 337, 504, 506 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3] Prosecution case in short can be stated as under:- . on 28th August, 1996 at about 9.00 a.m. the appellants and other accused formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of it’s common object, for committing offence of rioting with deadly weapons and attempt to commit murder of members of Scheduled Caste community in the village etc., started rioting and in the incident, they attacked Scheduled Caste community locality. They even committed the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989. During the incident, the appellant and others resisted Policemen, who tried to intervene and stop the violence. In the melee, number of persons sustained injuries. 3 Cri. Appeal No. 121.98 . The learned Judge of the trial Court conducted the Sessions trial against 57 accused. The learned Judge amongst the other accused, convicted the appellants under section 143, 147 read with section 149, 148 read with section 149, under section 324 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge, however, acquitted the appellants from the offence punishable under section 307, 353, 504, 506 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and from the offence punishable under sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the learned Judge while awarding sentence, took into account the period for which the appellants were in custody, pending the trial, and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for the period, which he had already undergone for the main offence punishable under section 324 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal code. . The learned Judge awarded sentence of lesser duration for the other offences mentioned above to the appellant No.2. The learned Judge also sentenced him to pay a fine under various heads. I am told, the fine amount was immediately paid. The appellants, against this Judgment and order preferred this appeal, which remained pending since 1998. 4] The learned Advocate appearing for the 4 Cri. Appeal No. 121.98 appellants mainly contended that the impugned Judgment and order is erroneous as far as the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the offence which is said to have been proved against the appellant. However, the evidence on record about causing of hurt to the prosecution witnesses is quite cogent and it can not be said that conviction of the appellant under section 324 read with section 149 is incorrect. 5] In view of this, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/ok