PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Dr. S.K. Yadav. amicus curiae, in criminal appeal No. 101 of 2003. Sri A.K. Sachan, Advocate in connected criminal appeal No. 5477 of 2002, Sri Mohit Singh in criminal appeal No. 5317 of 2002, Sri A.K.S. Solanki and by Sri S.N. Tripathi, amicus curiae, in criminal appeal No. 580 of 2004, Sri G.S. Hajela and Sri K.D. Tripathi, Advocates for the complainant and Sri R.Y. Pandey, learned A.G.A. assisted by Sri Rajeev Ojha, brief holder for the State and perused the record. Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2003, Pradeep Kumar son of Banarsi Das v. State of V.P. and connected, Criminal Appeal No. 580 of 2004, Devendra Kumar alias Babloo son of Ram Bharose have been preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 5.12.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 5, Moradabad convicting and sentencing the appellants Pradeep Kumar and Devendra Kumar alias Babloo under Section 394, I.P.C. to undergo 10 years R.I. with a fine of ' 10,000 each and under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34. I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and fine of ' 20,000. The impugned order further provides that in default of payment of fine of ' 10,000 under Section 394, I.P.C. the accused-appellants to undergo a further period of imprisonment of two years and in default of payment of fine of ' 20,000 under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. to undergo a further period of imprisonment of 4 years. 'The Court below further convicted and sentenced the appellants under Section 411, I.P.C. to undergo 2 years R.I.

(2.) Criminal Appeal No. 5317 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal No. 5477 of 2002 have also been preferred by appellants Devendra Kumar son of Ram Gopal and Vijay Pal son of Medhai Lal respectively challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 5.12.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 5, Moradabad convicting and sentencing the aforesaid appellants under Section 411, I.P.C. to undergo 2 years R.I. with a fine of ' 5,000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) The appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 101 of 2002, 580 of 2004 and 5317 of 2002 have challenged the judgment and order on the ground that the conviction of the appellants is against the weight of evidence on record; that the conviction of the appellants is bad in law and the sentence is too severe; and the trial court has not correctly assessed the evidence on record. Appellant Vijay Pal in Criminal Appeal No. 5477 of 2002 has also challenged the impugned judgment and order on similar grounds except that the alleged recovery of ' 50,000 shown from him is false and fabricated as there is no evidence in this regard.