73 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt rt and Ram Bodkhe are concerned they were convicted basically for the offences relating to receiving stolen property. Both did not C ou challenge the order of conviction recorded by the Trial Court against them. It is the State of Maharashtra who came in appeal for enhancement of sentence against all the Accused. On appreciation of the evidence against Accused No.2 Pradip ig h Chandaliya and Accused No.3 Ram Bodkhe we find that the reasons and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions H Judge are based upon due appreciation of evidence and are consistent with the evidence on record as well as the settled legal principles. We are therefore not inclined to enhance the sentence ba y against Accused Nos.2 and 3. 94. In respect to the appeal against acquittal under some om of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, we upon evaluation of evidence do not find any perversity, illegality or incorrectness in B the findings recorded by the Trial Court. We thus find that appeal against acquittal filed by the State of Maharashtra deserves to be dismissed. 95. In the above premise and in the totality of the facts and circumstances, we proceed to pass the following order – ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:36:29 :::