STATE Vs. MAHESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State in Criminal Appeal No.371/1998 challenges the judgment dated 6th October 1997 acquitting Lokesh, Mukesh, Prem Shankar, Rajiv and Sanjay Yadav (since deceased) from charges under Sections 302/396/397/398 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The aforesaid respondents were charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet dated 25th September, 1995 after the completion of investigation in the FIR No.253/1995 registered at Police Station Lodhi Colony, relating to homicidal deaths of Anil Kumar Shokal, Vijender Kumar Shokal and H.P. Pandey, as a result of fire arm injuries, in late evening on 5 th July, 1995.

(2.) One Pramod Kumar, could not be arrested and was declared a proclaimed offender. He was subsequently arrested after he surrendered in the Court on 7th January, 1998 i.e. after the judgment of acquittal dated 6th October, 1997 in favour of Lokesh, Mukesh, Prem Shankar, Rajiv and Sanjay Yadav (since deceased) had been pronounced. The said Pramod Kumar by judgment dated 19th January, 2004 has been convicted under section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 395 read with Section 120B IPC. By order on sentence dated 29th January, 2004, Pramod Kumar stands sentenced to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten months for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. For the offence under Section 395 read with section 120B IPC, Pramod Kumar has been sentenced to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for ten months. The sentences are to run concurrently.

(3.) We had heard arguments in Criminal Appeal No.371/1998 filed by the State against acquittal of Lokesh, Mukesh, Prem Shankar and Rajiv and in Criminal Appeal No.143/2004 filed by Pramod Kumar challenging his conviction. As there are two judgments and the evidence was separately recorded, we deem it appropriate to independently examine and deal with the evidence on record and pronounce two separate decisions.