JAGMOHAN Vs. STATE OF UTTARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will adjudicate the above titled three criminal appeals.

(2.) It is pertinent to mention that Appeals No.170/08 and 36/09, arise out of the common judgment and order dated 10.3.2008, rendered by Sessions Judge, Uttarakashi in S.T. No.13/06, convicting both the appellants Balbeer and Jagmohan, for the offences of Section 363, 366-A, 372 and 376(2)(g). For all these offences, they have been sentenced for a different tenure of imprisonment. All the terms of prison 2 have been directed to run concurrently. It would not be necessary to reproduce the different terms of imprisonment, awarded to both the convicts, in this judgment.

(3.) Third appeal no.298/2003, preferred by convict Arvind Singh, arises out of the judgment and order dated 23.9.2003, rendered by Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in S.T. No.13/2002, convicting the accused Arvind Singh for the same offences. The sentences passed by the Sessions Judge (manned by a different Judge) is also the same as that of other two accused, named above. All the sentences, in this trial also, were directed to run concurrently. These aforementioned trials arose out of the same crime no.2 of 2002, pertaining to Patwari Outpost Darsaun, Tehsil Barkot, District Uttarkashi but the chargesheet against the accused Arvind Singh was submitted in the court separately because he was arrested soon after the incident, whereas the chargesheet against the accused Jagmohan and Balbeer was submitted in the court distinctly because they absconded after the incident. Since the accused Arvind Singh was arrested, hence his trial proceeded earlier whereas, the trial against other two accused could not be proceeded because they were absconding. Accused Balbeer surrendered on 24.3.2006 whereas accused Jagmohan surrendered on 25.8.2006, so their S.T. No.13/2006, State Vs. Balbir and S.T. no.16/2006, State Vs. Jagmohan, were clubbed together by learned Sessions Judge for proceeding ahead.