Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 323
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1145 OF 2011
TANAJI SHAMRAO KALE …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1160 OF 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3385 of 2012)
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.
1.
3385 of 2012.
FACTUAL ASPECT
2. The appellant Tanaji in Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of
2011 is accused no.9. The appellants Ratu, Satu and
Maruti in Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 3385 of 2012 are accused nos. 1, 2 and
5, respectively. There were a total of 9 accused. The trial
Signature Not Verified
court acquitted the accused no. 4. The rest of them were
Digitally signed by
ASHISH KONDLE
Date: 2025.03.06
15:38:42 IST
Reason:
convicted. The trial court convicted the appellants for the
etc. Page 1 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the
IPC’). The appellants were sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment. The High Court confirmed their conviction
th
vide judgment dated 24 September 2010.
3. As far as accused no.9 is concerned, this Court
ordered him to be released on bail by order dated 10th
May 2011. However, accused nos. 1, 2 and 5 were not
granted the benefit of bail by this Court. Their prayer for
th
bail was rejected by orders dated 19 March 2013 and
th
11 April 2014. We have been informed across the Bar
that accused nos.1, 2 and 5 have undergone the entire
sentence and have been released.
4. PW-1, Dadarao, is the complainant, the son of PW-
5, Tarabai. The deceased, Murlidhar, was the uncle of
PW-1. Accused no.8, Shamrao, had three sons, Ratu,
Satu and Tanaji, and they are accused nos. 1, 2 and 9,
respectively. Accused nos. 3 and 4 were real brothers.
Accused no.7 is the grandson of accused no.8, and
accused no. 6 is a kinsman of accused no. 8. Accused
no.5 was working with accused no.8 at that time. PW-1’s
father owned five acres of land in a village where PW-1
and the appellants were residing. The deceased and PW-1
were residing separately. According to the prosecution’s
case, there was a partition effected between PW-1’s father
etc. Page 2 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
and his brothers. According to the prosecution's case,
when the land was jointly owned, it was irrigated land
and water was drawn from a nearby river through a
pipeline. Hanmant, step uncle of PW-1, was the joint
family manager who had obtained a loan to install a
motor pump and pipeline to draw water from the river.
Hanmant was collecting amounts from PW-1’s father and
uncle and was paying instalments of loan to the bank.
The prosecution’s case is that as the accused restrained
PW-1 from taking water through the pipeline, the dispute
started and complaints were lodged at the police station.
The relationship between the family of the PW-1 and the
family of the accused was strained.
th
5. On 18 July 2001 at about 10.15 a.m. to 10.30
a.m., PW-5 was fetching water from a hand pump. After
some time, she made a hue and cry and started
proceeding towards the place of residence of PW-1. At
that time, PW-1 came out and saw PW-5 proceeding
towards the house of the deceased and started shouting
that the accused were assaulting the deceased with
swords. PW-5 proceeded towards the house of the
deceased by the side of a hill. PW-1 went up to the hill
and saw the accused assaulting the deceased with
swords in their hands. Though he tried to intervene, the
assailants even assaulted PW-1. According to the case of
etc. Page 3 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
the prosecution, one Bajrang (PW-2), who was grazing
cattle on nearby land, had also seen the incident of the
accused giving blows by swords on the knees, hands and
legs of the deceased. Accused no.8, Shamrao, was
standing near the spot of the incident with a stick in his
hand and was instigating the other accused to assault
the deceased. Bajrang tried to intervene. However, some
of the accused ran towards him and threatened him.
Therefore, he did not intervene. At that time, accused
no.9-Tanaji (appellant), a police constable, came to the
spot. Accused no.9-Tanaji took the sword from the hands
of accused no. 1, Ratu, and started giving blows to the
right knee of the deceased. Though PW-1 requested the
accused not to assault the deceased, the accused did not
pay any heed. During the investigation, at the instance of
accused Maruti, one sword was seized. There are three
eye witnesses namely PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5. Evidence of
PW-10 is also material.
SUBMISSIONS
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
has taken us through the evidence of these witnesses. He
submitted that even according to the prosecution
witnesses, some other eye witnesses had seen the alleged
incident. However, none of them were examined. He
submitted that evidence of PW-1 (Dadarao) cannot be
etc. Page 4 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
believed. The witness claimed that he was a student of
th
11 standard and he used to have four to five lectures
every day from 7.30 a.m. He submitted that, therefore, it
is difficult to believe that he had seen the incident
between 10.15 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. He submitted that he
did not state in his police statement that after attending
one class, he skipped the rest and returned home. He
submitted that, therefore, his testimony deserved to be
ignored. He submitted that the statement made by PW-2
to the effect that he saw accused no. 9 assaulting with a
sword is an omission. He also submitted that PW-5,
Tarabai, has not ascribed any role to the appellant,
Tanaji. Inviting our attention to the evidence of PW-10,
Vasant Zunjare, P.I., attached to Barshi Police Station, he
submitted that his evidence discloses that at that time,
the accused no.9 - Tanaji, was doing duty with the crime
branch. Learned counsel pointed out that the witness
admitted that, as per the record, from 18th July 2001 to
19th July 2001, an important duty was assigned to the
accused no.9 Tanaji. Therefore, he was on duty at that
time. He also submitted that though the prosecution
witnesses had ascribed a clear role to the acquitted
accused no. 4 and accused no. 8, their testimony has
been disbelieved to that extent. Learned senior counsel,
therefore, submitted that the appellants deserve to be
acquitted.
etc. Page 5 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent supported the impugned judgment. He
submitted that PW-5 did not refer to the presence of
accused no. 9-Tanaji, as before he could appear on the
scene, the witness left the scene of the offence. He
submitted that the role ascribed by PW-1 and PW-2 to
the accused, including the appellants, has been
established in their testimony, and no material omissions
and contradictions were brought on record. He submitted
that evidence of PW-10 indicates that on the date of the
offence, a certain important duty was assigned to the
appellant, but he was not present at the police station on
those two days. Therefore, the defence of an alibi is not
established.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
8. We have perused the evidence of the material
prosecution witnesses. The version of PW-1 about the
incident reads thus:
“ The incident took place on
18.07.2001 at about 10.15 a.m. to
10.30 a.m. At that time, I was taking
meals in my house. On the day of
incident, I attended the school at
about 7.30 a.m. I attended one lecture
and returned to the house. At that
time, my mother was fetching the
water from the hand pump. She had
carried two pitchers to bring the third
etc. Page 6 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
pitcher from the hand pump. The
hand pump is installed at a distance
of 300 ft. at the eastern side of my
house. I heard big shout of my
mother. I came running from my
house by leaving the food. At that time
my mother was shouting loudly and
she was uttering the words that Ratu
Kale, Satu Kale, Shankar Kale,
Bhayaji Kale, Maruti Shinde, Sahadeo
Kale, Dharma Hake were beating my
uncle. I proceeded towards the spot
where the said persons were beating
my uncle. I was standing at a distance
of 30 ft from the distance of the
incident. I had seen that all the
accused were giving blow of swords to
my uncle. I again say that Ratu Kale,
Satu Kale, Shankar Kale, Bhayyaji
Kale, Maruti Shinde Sahadeo Kale,
Dharma Hake were beating my uncle
by swords. On his shoulder, on both
the wrists, on knees. I was using the
went Aba to my uncle Murlidhar. My
mother was also running towards the
house of my uncle. I requested the
said persons not to beat my uncle.
But Ratu Kale, accused Dharma and
Shankar came to my direction
alongwith the swords in their hands
in order to assault me. I started
running towards the house of
Bhayyaji Vhanemane. Thereafter, I
was standing near the open space
adjacent to the house of Bhayyaji
Vhanmane. At that time, Bajrang
Dhedgade was gazing his cattles. I
told him to request the said persons
not to beat my uncle. Bajrang
etc. Page 7 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
Dhaigade proceeded towards the spot
and told the said persons not to beat
my uncle. But Ratu Kale, Maruti and
Bhayyaji come towards his direction
alongwith the swords in their hand.
Shamrao Kale was standing at some
distance alongwith stick in his hand
and he was instigating the accused to
beat my uncle and not to rescue him.
At the same time, accused Tanaji Kali
came on his bullet motor cycle. He
parked his vehicle behind the house of
Murlidhar, on the road. He came
running towards the spot of incident.
He told to the assailants why they are
beating him like a women. He took the
sword from the hand of his brother
Ratu kale and he started giving blows
of sword hastily on the right knee of
Murlidhar. ”
9. After carefully perusing the cross-examination, we
find no material omissions or contradictions have been
brought on record regarding the role ascribed to the
appellants. The only omission brought on record is that
the statement of the witness recorded under Section 161
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
‘CrPC’) does not mention that after attending one class,
he came to the house on the date of the incident. We do
not think that this omission is so relevant as to amount
to contradiction as provided in the explanation to Section
162 of CrPC.
etc. Page 8 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
10. As far as PW-2 is concerned, his version in the
examination-in-chief is same as what is stated by PW-1.
He claimed that he stated before the police that the
accused were assaulting the deceased by sword. However,
the statement regarding the use of the sword is an
omission. The statement that he saw the accused
assaulting the deceased is not an omission. There are no
material omissions or contradictions brought on record
as far as this witness is concerned.
11. PW-5’s version about the role played by the
appellants is similar to the version of PWs-1 and 2. It is
true that PW-5 has not ascribed any role to accused no.9-
Tanaji. The explanation for that is in the examination-in-
chief of PW-5 herself. She stated that after she saw
accused nos. 1 to 7 beating the deceased, she started
running towards her house. Therefore, even before
accused no.9-Tanaji arrived on the scene, the present
appellant had left the scene of the offence.
12. Regarding evidence of PW-10, Vasant Zunjare, P.I.,
his version is that from 18th July to 19th July 2001,
some important duty was assigned to the accused no.9
Tanaji. The witness admitted that accused Tanaji was not
in the police station on those two days. The accused no.9
has not adduced evidence to show that he was elsewhere
etc. Page 9 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
when the incident occurred. Therefore, the accused no.9
Tanaji's alibi plea cannot be accepted.
13. Hence, the testimony of PWs-1, 2 and 5 as regards
the role ascribed to the accused nos.1 to 7, is
trustworthy. The testimony of PWs-1 and 2 on the role
ascribed to the accused no.9 is also reliable. The accused
no.4 was acquitted by the trial court as he proved the
defence of alibi. Hence, the acquittal of the accused no.4
is of no help to the other accused.
14. It is true that there may be other eye witnesses who
were not examined. But PW-2 is not a witness who was
related in any manner to the deceased. He had no enmity
against the accused. As the evidence of the three eye
witnesses is of sterling quality, the failure to examine the
other alleged eye witnesses will not be fatal for the
prosecution case.
15. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeals. The
appeals are dismissed. We direct the accused no. 9-Tanaji
Shamrao Kale, to surrender within one month from today
to undergo the remaining sentence. If accused nos.1, 2
and 5, who have challenged the impugned judgment,
have already undergone the sentence and have been
released, the question of the said accused (appellants in
Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition
etc. Page 10 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
(Crl.) No. 3385 of 2012) being taken to custody will not
arise. However, if they have not been released after
undergoing the sentence, they must undergo the
remaining sentence.
……………………..J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
……………………..J.
(Ujjal Bhuyan)
New Delhi;
March 05, 2025.
etc. Page 11 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1145 OF 2011
TANAJI SHAMRAO KALE …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENT
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1160 OF 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3385 of 2012)
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.
1.
3385 of 2012.
FACTUAL ASPECT
2. The appellant Tanaji in Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of
2011 is accused no.9. The appellants Ratu, Satu and
Maruti in Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 3385 of 2012 are accused nos. 1, 2 and
5, respectively. There were a total of 9 accused. The trial
Signature Not Verified
court acquitted the accused no. 4. The rest of them were
Digitally signed by
ASHISH KONDLE
Date: 2025.03.06
15:38:42 IST
Reason:
convicted. The trial court convicted the appellants for the
etc. Page 1 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read
with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the
IPC’). The appellants were sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment. The High Court confirmed their conviction
th
vide judgment dated 24 September 2010.
3. As far as accused no.9 is concerned, this Court
ordered him to be released on bail by order dated 10th
May 2011. However, accused nos. 1, 2 and 5 were not
granted the benefit of bail by this Court. Their prayer for
th
bail was rejected by orders dated 19 March 2013 and
th
11 April 2014. We have been informed across the Bar
that accused nos.1, 2 and 5 have undergone the entire
sentence and have been released.
4. PW-1, Dadarao, is the complainant, the son of PW-
5, Tarabai. The deceased, Murlidhar, was the uncle of
PW-1. Accused no.8, Shamrao, had three sons, Ratu,
Satu and Tanaji, and they are accused nos. 1, 2 and 9,
respectively. Accused nos. 3 and 4 were real brothers.
Accused no.7 is the grandson of accused no.8, and
accused no. 6 is a kinsman of accused no. 8. Accused
no.5 was working with accused no.8 at that time. PW-1’s
father owned five acres of land in a village where PW-1
and the appellants were residing. The deceased and PW-1
were residing separately. According to the prosecution’s
case, there was a partition effected between PW-1’s father
etc. Page 2 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
and his brothers. According to the prosecution's case,
when the land was jointly owned, it was irrigated land
and water was drawn from a nearby river through a
pipeline. Hanmant, step uncle of PW-1, was the joint
family manager who had obtained a loan to install a
motor pump and pipeline to draw water from the river.
Hanmant was collecting amounts from PW-1’s father and
uncle and was paying instalments of loan to the bank.
The prosecution’s case is that as the accused restrained
PW-1 from taking water through the pipeline, the dispute
started and complaints were lodged at the police station.
The relationship between the family of the PW-1 and the
family of the accused was strained.
th
5. On 18 July 2001 at about 10.15 a.m. to 10.30
a.m., PW-5 was fetching water from a hand pump. After
some time, she made a hue and cry and started
proceeding towards the place of residence of PW-1. At
that time, PW-1 came out and saw PW-5 proceeding
towards the house of the deceased and started shouting
that the accused were assaulting the deceased with
swords. PW-5 proceeded towards the house of the
deceased by the side of a hill. PW-1 went up to the hill
and saw the accused assaulting the deceased with
swords in their hands. Though he tried to intervene, the
assailants even assaulted PW-1. According to the case of
etc. Page 3 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
the prosecution, one Bajrang (PW-2), who was grazing
cattle on nearby land, had also seen the incident of the
accused giving blows by swords on the knees, hands and
legs of the deceased. Accused no.8, Shamrao, was
standing near the spot of the incident with a stick in his
hand and was instigating the other accused to assault
the deceased. Bajrang tried to intervene. However, some
of the accused ran towards him and threatened him.
Therefore, he did not intervene. At that time, accused
no.9-Tanaji (appellant), a police constable, came to the
spot. Accused no.9-Tanaji took the sword from the hands
of accused no. 1, Ratu, and started giving blows to the
right knee of the deceased. Though PW-1 requested the
accused not to assault the deceased, the accused did not
pay any heed. During the investigation, at the instance of
accused Maruti, one sword was seized. There are three
eye witnesses namely PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5. Evidence of
PW-10 is also material.
SUBMISSIONS
6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
has taken us through the evidence of these witnesses. He
submitted that even according to the prosecution
witnesses, some other eye witnesses had seen the alleged
incident. However, none of them were examined. He
submitted that evidence of PW-1 (Dadarao) cannot be
etc. Page 4 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
believed. The witness claimed that he was a student of
th
11 standard and he used to have four to five lectures
every day from 7.30 a.m. He submitted that, therefore, it
is difficult to believe that he had seen the incident
between 10.15 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. He submitted that he
did not state in his police statement that after attending
one class, he skipped the rest and returned home. He
submitted that, therefore, his testimony deserved to be
ignored. He submitted that the statement made by PW-2
to the effect that he saw accused no. 9 assaulting with a
sword is an omission. He also submitted that PW-5,
Tarabai, has not ascribed any role to the appellant,
Tanaji. Inviting our attention to the evidence of PW-10,
Vasant Zunjare, P.I., attached to Barshi Police Station, he
submitted that his evidence discloses that at that time,
the accused no.9 - Tanaji, was doing duty with the crime
branch. Learned counsel pointed out that the witness
admitted that, as per the record, from 18th July 2001 to
19th July 2001, an important duty was assigned to the
accused no.9 Tanaji. Therefore, he was on duty at that
time. He also submitted that though the prosecution
witnesses had ascribed a clear role to the acquitted
accused no. 4 and accused no. 8, their testimony has
been disbelieved to that extent. Learned senior counsel,
therefore, submitted that the appellants deserve to be
acquitted.
etc. Page 5 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent supported the impugned judgment. He
submitted that PW-5 did not refer to the presence of
accused no. 9-Tanaji, as before he could appear on the
scene, the witness left the scene of the offence. He
submitted that the role ascribed by PW-1 and PW-2 to
the accused, including the appellants, has been
established in their testimony, and no material omissions
and contradictions were brought on record. He submitted
that evidence of PW-10 indicates that on the date of the
offence, a certain important duty was assigned to the
appellant, but he was not present at the police station on
those two days. Therefore, the defence of an alibi is not
established.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
8. We have perused the evidence of the material
prosecution witnesses. The version of PW-1 about the
incident reads thus:
“ The incident took place on
18.07.2001 at about 10.15 a.m. to
10.30 a.m. At that time, I was taking
meals in my house. On the day of
incident, I attended the school at
about 7.30 a.m. I attended one lecture
and returned to the house. At that
time, my mother was fetching the
water from the hand pump. She had
carried two pitchers to bring the third
etc. Page 6 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
pitcher from the hand pump. The
hand pump is installed at a distance
of 300 ft. at the eastern side of my
house. I heard big shout of my
mother. I came running from my
house by leaving the food. At that time
my mother was shouting loudly and
she was uttering the words that Ratu
Kale, Satu Kale, Shankar Kale,
Bhayaji Kale, Maruti Shinde, Sahadeo
Kale, Dharma Hake were beating my
uncle. I proceeded towards the spot
where the said persons were beating
my uncle. I was standing at a distance
of 30 ft from the distance of the
incident. I had seen that all the
accused were giving blow of swords to
my uncle. I again say that Ratu Kale,
Satu Kale, Shankar Kale, Bhayyaji
Kale, Maruti Shinde Sahadeo Kale,
Dharma Hake were beating my uncle
by swords. On his shoulder, on both
the wrists, on knees. I was using the
went Aba to my uncle Murlidhar. My
mother was also running towards the
house of my uncle. I requested the
said persons not to beat my uncle.
But Ratu Kale, accused Dharma and
Shankar came to my direction
alongwith the swords in their hands
in order to assault me. I started
running towards the house of
Bhayyaji Vhanemane. Thereafter, I
was standing near the open space
adjacent to the house of Bhayyaji
Vhanmane. At that time, Bajrang
Dhedgade was gazing his cattles. I
told him to request the said persons
not to beat my uncle. Bajrang
etc. Page 7 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
Dhaigade proceeded towards the spot
and told the said persons not to beat
my uncle. But Ratu Kale, Maruti and
Bhayyaji come towards his direction
alongwith the swords in their hand.
Shamrao Kale was standing at some
distance alongwith stick in his hand
and he was instigating the accused to
beat my uncle and not to rescue him.
At the same time, accused Tanaji Kali
came on his bullet motor cycle. He
parked his vehicle behind the house of
Murlidhar, on the road. He came
running towards the spot of incident.
He told to the assailants why they are
beating him like a women. He took the
sword from the hand of his brother
Ratu kale and he started giving blows
of sword hastily on the right knee of
Murlidhar. ”
9. After carefully perusing the cross-examination, we
find no material omissions or contradictions have been
brought on record regarding the role ascribed to the
appellants. The only omission brought on record is that
the statement of the witness recorded under Section 161
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
‘CrPC’) does not mention that after attending one class,
he came to the house on the date of the incident. We do
not think that this omission is so relevant as to amount
to contradiction as provided in the explanation to Section
162 of CrPC.
etc. Page 8 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
10. As far as PW-2 is concerned, his version in the
examination-in-chief is same as what is stated by PW-1.
He claimed that he stated before the police that the
accused were assaulting the deceased by sword. However,
the statement regarding the use of the sword is an
omission. The statement that he saw the accused
assaulting the deceased is not an omission. There are no
material omissions or contradictions brought on record
as far as this witness is concerned.
11. PW-5’s version about the role played by the
appellants is similar to the version of PWs-1 and 2. It is
true that PW-5 has not ascribed any role to accused no.9-
Tanaji. The explanation for that is in the examination-in-
chief of PW-5 herself. She stated that after she saw
accused nos. 1 to 7 beating the deceased, she started
running towards her house. Therefore, even before
accused no.9-Tanaji arrived on the scene, the present
appellant had left the scene of the offence.
12. Regarding evidence of PW-10, Vasant Zunjare, P.I.,
his version is that from 18th July to 19th July 2001,
some important duty was assigned to the accused no.9
Tanaji. The witness admitted that accused Tanaji was not
in the police station on those two days. The accused no.9
has not adduced evidence to show that he was elsewhere
etc. Page 9 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
when the incident occurred. Therefore, the accused no.9
Tanaji's alibi plea cannot be accepted.
13. Hence, the testimony of PWs-1, 2 and 5 as regards
the role ascribed to the accused nos.1 to 7, is
trustworthy. The testimony of PWs-1 and 2 on the role
ascribed to the accused no.9 is also reliable. The accused
no.4 was acquitted by the trial court as he proved the
defence of alibi. Hence, the acquittal of the accused no.4
is of no help to the other accused.
14. It is true that there may be other eye witnesses who
were not examined. But PW-2 is not a witness who was
related in any manner to the deceased. He had no enmity
against the accused. As the evidence of the three eye
witnesses is of sterling quality, the failure to examine the
other alleged eye witnesses will not be fatal for the
prosecution case.
15. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeals. The
appeals are dismissed. We direct the accused no. 9-Tanaji
Shamrao Kale, to surrender within one month from today
to undergo the remaining sentence. If accused nos.1, 2
and 5, who have challenged the impugned judgment,
have already undergone the sentence and have been
released, the question of the said accused (appellants in
Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition
etc. Page 10 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011
(Crl.) No. 3385 of 2012) being taken to custody will not
arise. However, if they have not been released after
undergoing the sentence, they must undergo the
remaining sentence.
……………………..J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
……………………..J.
(Ujjal Bhuyan)
New Delhi;
March 05, 2025.
etc. Page 11 of 11
Criminal Appeal No. 1145 of 2011