MANRAKHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from the judgment of conviction dated 18.2.1998 passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1996. All the Appellants, with the exception of Appellant No.2 in Criminal Appeal 714/98 have been represented by Counsel. The Appeal was originally filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. They were transferred to this Court consequent to the reorganization of the State. No fresh Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of Appellant No.2. It is a very old appeal. The accusations against the Appellants are common. We do not consider it desirable to adjourn all three appeals comprising a total of 12 Appellants for issuing fresh notice to Appellant No.2. At our request Counsel for the other Appellants have rendered us proper assistance with regard to Appellant No.2 also.

(2.) In Criminal Appeal No. 631 of 1998, Appellant Manrakhan has been convicted under Section 302/149 IPC to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500, failing which he was required to undergo three months further rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted under 323/149 IPC to one year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.100, failing which he was required to undergo further one month rigorous imprisonment. He has further been convicted under Section 147 IPC to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200, failing which he was required to undergo two months further rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) In Criminal Appeal No.714 of 1998, Appellants Ram Bali, Rama, Karra alias Raj Kumar, Bharra alias Ram Kumar and Tuk have been convicted under Section 302/149 IPC to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500 each, failing which they would have to undergo three months further rigorous imprisonment. They have also been convicted under Section 323/149 IPC to one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100, failing which they would have to undergo further one month rigorous imprisonment. They have further been convicted under Section 147 IPC to two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200, failing which they would have to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Appellant No.6 Bhujbal has been convicted likewise except that instead of Section 147 IPC he has been convicted under Section 148 IPC to three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200, failing which he would have to undergo two months further rigorous imprisonment.