SUNDERLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since Cr.A.No.1180 of 1998 filed by Sunderlal and Cr.A.No.1245 of 1998 filed by Santosh Kumar arise out of a common judgement dated 25-04- 1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir in Sessions Trial No.126/1994, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgement.

(2.) Challenge in these appeals is to the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 25/4/1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 126/1994 whereby and whereunder learned trial Judge after holding the accused/appellants guilty for the offence, convicted each of them under Ss. 395 and 397 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1000.00, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Sec. 395 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Sec. 397 of the IPC, and appellant Sunderlal has been convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 6/9 (b) of the Indian Explosive Act and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500.00-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months, with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently.

(3.) The impugned judgement is challenged on the ground that without any evidence regarding identification, memorandum, seizure and eyewitness, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants in the aforesaid manner.