(1.) There are totally five accused namely Sudo Mandal, Radha Mandal, Dharminder Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal in this case. Though final report was laid as against all the aforesaid accused under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused Sudo Mandal alone was apprehended first in point of time. He stood trial for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted thereunder and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo a further period of six months rigorous imprisonment. After the aforesaid accused was convicted by the trial Court, accused Dharminder Mandal, who was declared as proclaimed offender, was apprehended. He faced trial for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted thereunder and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo a further period of two years. The other three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal could not be prosecuted as they have absconded and were already declared as proclaimed offenders.
(2.) Accused Sudo Mandal, who was convicted first in point of time for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred Criminal Appeal No. D-638-DB of 2007 and accused Dharminder Mandal, who was convicted later under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred Criminal Appeal No. D-9-DB of 2010.
(3.) Six witnesses were examined in Sessions Case No. 21 of 28.04.2006 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Bathinda, which culminated in Criminal Appeal No. D-638-DB of 2007. Except P.W. 1 Dr. Jaspreet Singh, Ex.EMO and P.W. 5 Dr. Rahul Bansal, in that case, the other witnesses were examined in Sessions Case No. 52 of 01.10.2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Bathinda, which culminated in Criminal Appeal No. D-9-DB of 2010. As both the appeals have originated from the very same occurrence and separate trial was conducted with the very same set of witnesses except two witnesses, we find that common judgment would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.