SUBE SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment dated 8.3.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kishangarhbas, Alwar, the appellants have approached this court. By the said judgment, the learned Judge had convicted the appellants, Sube Singh, Surendra and Rajendra, for offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and for offence under Section 341 IPC, whereas convicted the accused -appellant Gulab Singh for offence under Section 302 read with 120B IPC. But the learned Judge has acquitted Gulab Singh for offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and for offence under Section 341 IPC. By an order of even date, the learned Judge has sentenced the appellants as under: - -

(2.) BRIEFLY , the case of the prosecution is that on 19.1.2004, Karamveer (P.W.4) lodged a written report at Police Station Khairthal, District Alwar wherein he claimed that "yesterday on 18.1.2004, at 6:00 AM my father, Ramsingh, left his village with Gulab Singh S/o. Gyarsa Ram for the purpose of seeing a tractor at Alwar. Today, on 19.1.2004, around 4:00 to 5:00 AM, Mahendra Singh, a person who belongs to the village of my in -laws, Gangawali (Tatarpur) informed me that last night around 8:00 PM my father was assaulted with Kulhadies, Farsies and Lathies near the boring of Ramsingh S/o. Soniya. He was assaulted by Sube Singh S/o. Khyali Ram, Suresh @ Surendra, Rajendra both sons of Sube Singh, Meenu W/o. Sonu @ Surendra, Gulab Singh, by caste Jat, r/o. Village Todarpur, and by Sarli widow of Leelaram Jat, r/o. Gangawali (Tatarpur). Due to this assault, my father has expired on the spot itself. Due to land disputes, by playing fraud upon my father, they had taken him in order to commit his murder. Immediately after receiving this information, I have rushed here. Mahendra, Ramsingh, Prabhu, Deshraj and other residents of Village Gangawali (Tatarpur) have seen this incident. I am filing this report so legal action can be taken. Sd/ -"

(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses, and submitted twenty documents. Although the defense did not examine any witness, it did submit six documents. After completion of the trial, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this court.