JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH P.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals, arising out of the same judgment and order dated 30.1.06 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Hindaun City, District Karauli (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No.49/04 (27/04), were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE trial court has convicted the appellants-accused of both the appeals for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and directed to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, each and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. FACTUAL MATRIX

(3.) THE Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, initially filed the charge-sheet against the appellant-accused Sushila only, for the offence under Section 302, and subsequently filed supplementary charge-sheet against the appellant-accused Jagdish for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC in the Court of Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Hindaun City. The trial court, after framing the charge against both the accused, proceeded further with the trial, during which the prosecution to prove its case examined as many as 16 witnesses and produced documentary evidence from Ex. P.1 to Ex. P.18. The statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the allegations levelled against them and further stated that they were falsely implicated in the case. The appellant-accused Sushila examined herself as DW 1 in support of her defence and also produced the documentary evidence Ex. D.1-D.4/A. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsels for the parties convicted both the accused for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, and sentenced them to undergo the imprisonment as stated hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the trial court, the appellant Jagdish had preferred the appeal being No. 213/06 and the appellant-accused Sushila had preferred the appeal being No. 423/06. SUBMISSIONS: