NEMI CHAND & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 19.8.1999, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sikar, by which the appeal filed by the accused petitioners was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts relating to this Criminal Revision are that a case was registered by Police against the revisionists Nemi Chand and Murari Lal with the allegations that on 13th Oct. 1995, complainant Hansraj was kidnapped and was beaten by them and challan was filed against these revisionists for offence under Sections 365, 323 IPC. Charges were framed against these accused persons. Prosecution produced as many as six witnesses. Accused persons were examined under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. After hearing the arguments, trial court convicted these accused persons for offence under Sections 342 and 323 read with Sec. 34 Penal Code and acquitted them for the offence under Sec. 34 Penal Code and acquitted them for the offence under Sec. 365. The trial court fined these accused persons for Rs. 500.00 each for the offence under Sec. 342 and Rs. 500.00 for offence under Sec. 323 read with Sec. 34 IPC. Against that judgment, appeal was filed, which was dismissed by the impugned order, hence this Criminal Revision.

(3.) It is argued on behalf of accused petitioners that the judgments passed by both the courts below are wrong Both the Courts below have wrongly appreciated the evidence of prosecution. The evidence produced by prosecution was not reliable. The judgments passed by both the court below should be quashed and set-aside and they should be acquitted. In the alternative, it is argued that these accused persons nave been convicted for offence under Sections 342 and 323 Penal Code read with Sec. 34 Penal Code arid the maximum punishment for these offences is imprisonment for one year. It is further argued that both the Courts below have not given benefit of probation to these accused persons while under Sections 360 and 361 Cr.PC., it was proper for the courts below to give them such benefit. It is further argued that instant case is old one and these accused persons are facing trial since long. It is prayed that benefit of probation should be given to them.