LAWS(RAJ)-1991-4-71

RAM CHARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On April 11, 1991
RAM CHARAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 13th Dec., 1988 passed by the Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area & Additional Sessions Judge, Karauli in Sessions Judge No. 3/1988 hereby appellant Ram Charan (in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 43/1989) was convicted under Sec 302 Penal Code and accused Rameshwar was convicted under Sec. 324, IPC. Ram Chara was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for three months. Raraeshwa was sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one month The rest of the accused persons namely, Jiwan Lal, Kanhaiyalal Hem Rai Sure h and Jagdish were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Since both the appeals are directed against the same judgment given in Sessions Case No 3/198xe by the aforesaid Court of Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area and Addl. Sessions Judge, Karauli, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Appeal No. 43/1989 is the appeal filed by Ram Charan against hi conviction and sentence; as aforesaid; whereas appeal No. 240/1989 has been by the State of Rajasthan initially against Ramesh, Jagdish, Jiwan Lal, Kanhaiyalal Raj and Suresh. However, in this matter in State Leave to Appeal, on July, 1989, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal against Rameshwar, respondent No. 1 who had been convicted under Sec. 324, Penal Code and the Court did not find any substance in the leave to appeal against respondents No. 2 to 5 and. thus, the leave to appeal was refused against respondents No. 1 to 5. Hence, State appeal is against Suresh only. Thus, finally we are now concerned with the appeal of Ram Charan i.e. D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 43,89 and State Appeal against Suresh only in Cr. Appeal No. 240 of 1989.

(3.) The facts of the case may be succinct stated as under :