JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 27.10.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1579 of 2002,
upholding the conviction and the sentence of the appellants vide
judgment and order dated 2.11.2002 in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2002
(14/2000) passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast
Track), Laxmangarh, Alwar, convicting the appellants under
Sections 395, 396 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter called the IPC).
(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as
under:
A. Santosh Jagwayan (PW.13) lodged an FIR on 17.12.1996 at
8.30 A.M. that in the intervening night between 16th and 17th
December, 1996, on hearing a noise, he sent his Chowkidar Gopal
Nepali (deceased) to the roof of his house. Gopal Nepali went
upstairs, opened the gate of the roof, and found that 8 to 10 accused
persons were trying to enter into the house by breaking upon the
door of the roof. They immediately fired a shot at Gopal Nepali
(deceased) and entered into the house. The accused persons locked
Shashi Devi (PW.12), wife of complainant and Preeti (PW.14) and
Sandhya (PW.15), his daughters, in the bathroom and started
looting moveable properties. Meanwhile, the complainant's
neighbours raised their voices. Thus, the accused immediately fired
a shot at one of the neighbours, Mrs. Anita Yadav (deceased), and
as a result, she died on the spot. Kripa Dayal Yadav (PW.2),
husband of Anita Yadav caught hold of one of the accused but was
beaten with a gun's butt by the other accused persons who managed
to get the accused released from his clutches. The accused
decamped with cash, jewellery and silver wares etc.
B. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR No. 240 of 1996
(Ex.P-30) was registered under Sections 395, 396, 397 and 398 IPC
and investigation ensued. The dead bodies of Gopal Nepali and
Smt. Anita Yadav were recovered and sent for post-mortem
examination.
C. During the course of investigation, the appellants were
arrested. Raghuveer was arrested on December 19, 1996 and one
Ambassador car was recovered at his instance. On his further
disclosure and instance, one Kondhani of silver, 2 silver glasses,
one silver Katori, one silver spoon and one torch were recovered.
Raghuveer, Ghurelal and Kallu were put to the identification
parade. On December 24, 1996, co-accused Ram Krishan (now
dead) was arrested. On his arrest, case for offence under Section
120B, IPC was also added. On the information and at the instance
of accused Kallu, a 12 bore gun, one silver Katori, one pair of ear
tops and one earring was recovered on December 29, 1996. On the
information furnished by Ghurelal, one golden ring, one ear 'jhala',
one necklace, one Ilaychidani, one silver spoon and one Kondhani
were recovered on December 30, 1996. On January 1, 1997,
accused appellants Rajpal, Samay Singh and Chunchu @ Bhagwan
Singh were arrested. One 12 bore gun, one worship platter, 4 silver
glasses, one Katori and Rs.2,000/- in cash were recovered from
Chunchu @ Bhagwan. On the information furnished by accused
Samay Singh, one 32 bore revolver, two empty cartridges, 4 live
cartridges, 5 glasses, one Katori, one silver spoon and two coin of
silver along with Rs.8,900/- in cash and two notes of Nepal
currency were recovered. On the information of appellant Rajpal,
one 32 bore Katta, one empty cartridge, 5 live cartridges, two
golden bangles (Kangan), 3 silver button, one Katori of silver, one
silver glass and Rs.1000/- in cash were recovered. Some recoveries
were also made at the instance of co-accused Kuniya and Talevar
(acquitted by the High Court). Appellants Samay Singh, Chunchu
and Rajpal were also put to the identification parade.
D. After completing the investigation, the police filed challan for
offences punishable under Sections 395, 396, 397, 120B and 412
IPC, and under Sections 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act, 1950. The
charges were framed against the accused appellants. The accused
denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Prosecution produced as
many as 34 witnesses and exhibited 80 documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-
80) in support of its case. The accused appellants were examined
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They
denied the correctness of the statements made against them and
pleaded that they have been falsely implicated.
E. The trial court convicted all the accused under the provisions
of Section 396 IPC and awarded them punishment to undergo life
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. All of
them were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section
397 IPC, and a sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
seven years and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine,
three months rigorous imprisonment was awarded. They were
further convicted under Section 395 IPC, awarded life
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.
Accused Ghurelal, Chunchu @ Bhagwan Singh, Kallu, Rajpal and
Samay Singh were further convicted under Sections 3/25 and 3/27
of the Arms Act and to each, a sentence was awarded to undergo
three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous
imprisonment.
F. Being aggrieved by the said decision, all the accused
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1579 of 2002 which has been
decided by the High Court vide judgment and order dated
27.10.2004 acquitting the accused Talevar and Kuniya, though
maintaining the conviction and sentence in respect of the other
accused. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) Shri Altaf Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants has submitted that the appellants had not been kept
baparda. Therefore, the identification was not proper. He further
submitted that there had been most material discrepancies in the
deposition of witnesses which go to the root of this case, and
therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to
be set aside.;