KAILASH AND ANR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 18.5.2007 of Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track), Chittorgarh. By the impugned judgment, in Sessions Case No. 18/2007 titled as State v. Kailash and another the said court has convicted and sentenced both the accused-appellants as follows:-

(2.) In this appeal, it has been argued on behalf of the accused-appellants that the judgment of the trial court is against the facts as well as against the law. It has also been argued that there was no question of common intention and so conviction of the accused-appellants does not stand. Similarly, it has also been argued that since there was no previous enmity between the appellants and the deceased, so without motive, no body will kill another person. It has also been argued that the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem of deceased Raju have categorically stated that the head injury of Raju was of such type that it could not have been caused by a sword which has allegedly been recovered from possession of accused Kailash. In the circumstances, it has been prayed that benefit of doubt should be given to both the accused-appellants and, in the alternative, it has also been submitted that accused-appellant Kailash who is said to be the main accused in the case, is in jail since 5.1.2007 till today and other accused-appellant Rameshwar has also suffered confinement from 5.1.2007 to 9.4.2008 when he was ordered to be enlarged on bail by this Court. It has been argued by the appellants that there was no repeated injury, no previous enmity , no criminal antecedents, no motive and no common intention, case might be of sudden altercation so both the accused-appellants should be released on undergone sentence because they have not committed murder of Raju.

(3.) In the light of aforesaid arguments, we have perused the record and we have also heard the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer of accused-appellants. It has been argued on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor that the judgment of the trial court suffers from no infirmity and so the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as such.