DHUJI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARA Chand Jain, aged 68 years, was brutally attacked at 6. 30 AM on August 4, 1998 while he came out of the house of one Bane Singh Jat and was passing in front of Panchayat Bhawan. As many as 28 persons were named as assailants in the written report handed over by informant Rakesh Kumar Jain at Police Station Hindaun. Eighteen accused were nabbed and put to trial in Sessions Case No. 72/1999. Four accused viz. Devi Singh, Bhagwat Singh, Maharaj Singh and Ramdev were acquitted and remaining fourteen were convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge Hindaun City vide judgment dated March 27, 2001 as under:- Appellant Mahesh u/s. 302 and other appellants u/s. 302/149 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- , in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. u/s. 148 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) DURING the pendency of Appeal No. 213/2001 appellant Chandan Singh s/o Ram Prasad died and proceeding against him stands abated. Remaining ten accused were separately tried in Sessions case No. 221/2001 (63/2000 ). Learned Additional Sessions Judge Hindaun City vide judgment dated July 31, 2007 convicted and sentenced nine accused persons thus:- u/s. 302/149 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- , in default to further suffer imprisonment for six months. u/s. 148 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Since accused Padam Singh did not appear on the date of pronouncement of judgment, order of sentence could not be passed against him. The nine convicted accused have filed Appeal No. 1528/2007. Since both the appeals relate to one incident, we have heard both the appeals analogously and they are being decided by a common judgment.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand supported the impugned finding and urged that the appellants were rightly convicted and sentenced.