LAWS(MPH)-2019-1-45

AMIT @ RAJU VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On January 08, 2019
Amit @ Raju Vishwakarma Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No.616/2008 has been filed by appellant Amit @ Raju and Criminal Appeal No.708/2008 has been filed by appellants Adward Paul and Surendra @ Gopu Thakur, being aggrieved by the common judgment dated 22.01.2008 delivered by Sessions Judge, Katni, in Sessions Trial No.31/2005, whereby the appellants have been convicted for committing the murder of Rajkumar Balani and Jeevanlal by means of knife and robbed Rs.7,51,516/-, from deceased Rajkumar Balani. The appellant Amit @ Raju Vishwakarma has been convicted under Sections 302/34 of IPC (for committing the murder of Rajkumar), 302/34 of IPC (for committing the murder of Jeevanlal) and 394 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, respectively with default stipulations. The appellant Adward Paul has been convicted under Sections 302/34 of IPC (for committing the murder of Rajkumar), 302/34 of IPC (for committing the murder of Jeevanlal) and 394 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each (two counts), rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/-, respectively with default stipulations. The appellant Surendra @ Gopu Thakur has been convicted under Sections 302/34 of IPC (for committing the murder of Rajkumar), 302/34 of IPC (for committing the murder of Jeevanlal) and 394 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (on two counts) and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations.

(2.) We propose to deal with both the appeals analogously and dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment.

(3.) It is not in dispute from the appellants' side that deceased Rajkumar Balani and Jeewanlal have died and their death have been occurred due to the injuries inflicted on them and their death was homicidal.