MUNGILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the twelve appellants were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana Distt. Bharatpur for having committed murder of Sonpal and Vijay Singh in Sessions Case No. 42/1989. Vide judgment dated 17. 1. 1994, they were found guilty, convicted and sentenced by the learned trial judge as under : 1. Pratap 2. Chetram 3. Babu U/s. 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- U/s. 148 IPC to suffer one year RI. U/s. 325/149 IPC to suffer two year RI. and fine of Rs. 1000/ -. U/s. 324/149 IPC to suffer one year RI. U/s. 323 IPC to suffer six months RI. (In default of payment of fine to further suffer one year RI. 4. Mahendra 5. Amarchand S/o Mungilal 6. Chimman U/s. 302/149 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- 7. Lajwanta 8. Rajendra 9. Amarchand s/o Kesso 10. Man Singh U/s. 148 IPC U/s. 325/149 IPC U/s. 324/149 IPC U/s. 323 IPC to suffer two year RI. and fine of Rs. 1000/ -. to suffer one year RI. to suffer six months RI. to suffer one year RI. (In default of payment of fine to further suffer one year RI. + 11. Samandar U/s. 302/149 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- U/s. 148 IPC to suffer one year RI. U/s. 325/149 IPC to suffer two year RI. and fine of Rs. 1000/ -. U/s. 324 IPC to suffer one year RI. U/s. 323 IPC to suffer six months RI. (In default of payment of fine to further suffer one year RI. + 12. Mungilal U/s. 302/149 IPC + U/s. 148 IPC + U/s. 325/149 IPC + U/s. 324/149 IPC + U/s. 323 IPC + (In default of payment of fine to further suffer one year RI. ALL the sentence were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) AGAINST this judgment of conviction and sentence that the present action for filing the appeal has been resorted to by the appellants.

(3.) PER contra learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and canvassed that the appellants had committed the offence in a calculated manner with premeditation and they have been rightly convicted by the trial judge. The contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses are not material and the presence of the witnesses at the place of incident is quite natural.