LAKH SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed by the three appellants against a judgment dated 30.9.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali. D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 726/99 has been filed by the appellants-Lakh Singh and Ashok Kumar and D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 555/2000 has been filed by the accused-Champa Ram.

(2.) The prosecution story, in nut-shell, is to the effect that during the night intervening 7th and 8th Aug., 1994 three robbers armed with weapons entered the house of the deceased-Umeda Ram situated in village 'Hathiya Bera'. Umeda Ram, his son Jeeta Ram and other members of the family were sleeping in the house. They were attacked by the three robbers by sharp-edged weapons and Umeda Ram and his son Jeeta Ram were fatally wounded. Smt. Shanti W/o Ganesha Ram received grievous injuries by sharp edged weapons. Smt. Meera W/o said Umed Ram received grievous injuries by some blunt object. Smt. Soni W/o Jeeta Ram and Smt. Meera W/o Umeda Ram received other injuries by sharp-edged weapons. Smt. Soni as well as Smt. Meera also received simple injuries by blunt objects. The robbers succeeded in taking away lot many silver and gold ornaments with them. The police was informed at about 3.00 a.m. regarding the incident and the SHO, Police Station Sojat City, Gopal Singh PW-36 rushed to the spot with the other police personnel and recorded the 'Purchabayan' Ex.P/41 of Smt. Soni at 3.30 a.m. on 8.8.1994. Smt. Soni stated that the armed robbers entered their house at about 1.00-1.30 a.m. and attacked her as well as other members of the family and took away silver and gold ornaments with them. A case u/ss. 458, 392, 307, 324, 323 & 460 of the Penal Code was registered. Umeda Ram and Jeeta Ram both succumbed to their injuries. The three appellants were arrested on 6.10.1994 and various ornaments were allegedly recovered from their possession and at there instance. During inves- tigation it came out that certain ornaments were disposed of by the culprits to a goldsmith Kamal Kishore. The said Kamal Kishore was arrested and certain ornaments were recovered from his possession. The ornaments as well as the appellants were put to identification and after the investigation was over, the three appellants as well as the said Kamal Kishore were challaned. Kamal Kishore was charged for the offence punishable u/s. 411 of the IPC. The appellants were charged u/ss. 449, 302, 307, 326, 325, 324, 323 & 394 of the IPC. All the four pleaded not guilty. The prosecution side examined as many as 40 witnesses.

(3.) DW-1 Om Prakash and DW-2 Narendra were examined by the appellant-Ashok Kumar. Both deposed to the effect that the appellant-Ashok Kumar was brought by the police to the house of his maternal uncle in Nagaur. Both stated that the 'motbirs' Madan Lal and Jai Kishan were not with the police people. Arguments were then heard and the judgment was delivered on 30.9.1999. All the four accused-persons were found guilty for the offences for which they were charged. For the offences u/ss. 302 & 449 of the IPC. The three appellants were awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each. On account of non-payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months was awarded. For the offence punishable u/ss. 394 & 307 of the Penal Code each appellant, on each count, was awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.00. On account of non-payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 months was awarded. Regarding the offence punishable u/ss. 326, 325, 324 & 323 of the IPC, each appellant has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, 1 year, 6 months and 3 months respectively. For the offence punishable u/ss. 326 & 325 of the IPC, a fine of Rs. 100.00 on each count to each appellant has been awarded and on account of non-payment of fine 2 months' additional rigorous imprisonment has been awarded. The fourth accused-Kamal Kishore was released u/s. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Feeling aggrieved these two appeals have been preferred by the three appellants as indicated in the beginning.