JAMIL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five appeals, on behalf of seven accused persons, namely 1. Jamil S/o Jahur Shah, 2. Siddiq S/o Mohamood Meo, 3. Netram S/o Shri Basanti Lal, 4. Rajendra S/o Sampat Ram, 5. Avinash alias Billu S/o Shri Bonre Lal,.6. P.amzan S/o Safeda Meo and 7. Kallu S/o Safeda Meo, are directed against the common judgment and order dated 12th December, 2002, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Behror, District Alwar, in Sessions Case No. 22/2002 (26/2001), therefore, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under: Accused-Appellants Under Sections Sentence of Imprisonment Jamil, Ramzan, Kallu and Siddiq 395, IPC Each accused to undergo 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default of payment of fine, each of them to further undergo three month's additional simple imprisonment. 397, IPC Each accused to undergo 10 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000; in default of payment of fine, each of them to further undergo three month's additional simple imprisonment Avinash @ Billu, Rajendra and Netram 458, IPC 412, IPC Each accused to undergo 7 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500; in default of payment of fine, each of them to further undergo one month's additional simple imprisonment Each accused to undergo 7 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000; in default of payment of fine, each of them to further undergo three month's additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) Shri R. K. Mathur and Shri N.A. Naqvi, the learned counsel for accused-appellants Jamil, Ramzan, Kallu and Siddiq, argued the case at length on merits, but, during the course of arguments in view of the overwhelming evidence against these four accused appellants, and keeping in view the information given by these accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the recovery of articles in pursuance of that information, the identification memo in respect of those articles, the identification parade conducted in presence of these accused persons and further the identification of these accused persons by the prosecution witnesses, rightly did not press their appeals on merits, and contended that looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the delay in recovery of articles, the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court against these accused appellants under Sections 395 and 397, IPC, may be reduced to a period of 7 years RI, which is the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 397, IPC.