AMOLAK CHAND & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment/order dated 22.12.1989 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Sikar in Sessions Case No. 2/1988 (70/1983), whereby he while acquitting the co-accused persons Basanta, Banwari and Sohni accused and acquitting accused Amolak for the offence under Sections 147, 395, 397, 325, 323/149 and 325/149 Penal Code and accused Rajkumar for the offence under Sections 147, 395, 397, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC, but convicted the accused persons Amolak and Rajkumar for the offence under Sec. 452, 325/34, 324/34 and 323 Penal Code and granted the benefit of probation u/S. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to the accused Amolak Chand and also granted the benefit of probation to the accused Raj Kumar.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 11.10.1989, Vishwanath Sharma submitted written report at Police Station, Laxmangarh, on the basis of which the FIR No. 89/1981 was registered. Thereafter the investigation was commenced and after investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused person before the Court of Magistrate concerned under Sec. 324 and 325/34 IPC. Thereafter a complaint was filed by Ramesh Chand against the accused persons on the same set of facts. After recording the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, the trial court took cognizance for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 307, 452, 395 in alternate 397 read with Sec. 149 IPC. Thereafter the revision petition was filed against the said cognizance order. The Sessions Judge, Sikar vide order dated 16.5.1983, set-aside the cognizance order qua Sec. 307 IPC. Thereafter the Magistrate concerned committed the case to the Court of Sessions, who transferred the case to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sikar for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused persons, who denied from the same and claimed trial. The prosecution produced witnesses and exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements of accused persons were recorded under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 22.12.1989 acquitting the co-accused persons, convicted the accused persons and released them on probation as indicated above.

(3.) Against the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been preferred.