LAWS(RAJ)-2006-1-23

AHESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On January 16, 2006
SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, VINEET MAHESH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mahesh and Lakhan, the appellants herein, along with co-accused Raju alias Raj Kumar, Mangal Singh, Uttam Singh and Mahendra, were placed on trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Dholpur. Learned Judge vide Judgment dated February 6, 2003 acquitted Raju, Mangal Singh, Uttam Singh and Mahendra but convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- U/S.302/149, IPC: Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month imprisonment. U/S. 364, IPC : Each to suffer rigorous Imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer fifteen days' imprisonment. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution story runs as under :- On October 29, 1998, informant Chhitaria (PW-4) submitted a written report (Ex. P-16) at Police Station Mania stating therein that in the morning when he went to his field he found a dead body of Chandan lying on the field. Jeep No. RJ-11/CO494 belonging to Chandan was standing nearby. The miscreants appeared to have killed Chandan since they wanted to take away his Jeep but because of huge pits on the road the jeep could not be driven away and it was left there. A case under Sections 365 and 362, IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body was performed, statements of witnesses were recorded, the accused were arrested and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2. Dholpur. Charges nder Sections 147, 148,364, 302 and 364/149, IPC were framed. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 20 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313, Cr. P. C. the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated here-inabove.

(3.) We have heard the rival submissions and scrutinised the record.