GHANDIKOTA SRI DEVI,J. - (1.) The argument of this case was concluded on 11.02.2019. We then made the following order :- "Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajesh Kishore Srivastava and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants for all the three appeals and Sri H. M. B. Sinha, learned A.G.A.-I for the State. We will give reasons later. But we make the operative order here and now. The Criminal Appeal Nos. 4905 of 2015, 4908 of 2015 and 5651 of 2015 preferred by appellants Gyanendra, Satveer Singh and Sonu respectively against the judgement and order dated 03.09.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 1429 of 2011 (State Vs. Gyanendra) u/s 147, 148, 504, 506, 302/149, 201 I.P.C., Sessions Trial No. 1564 of 2012 (State Vs. Satveer Singh) u/s 147, 148, 504, 506, 302/149, 201 I.P.C. and Session Trial No. 659 of 2013 (State Vs. Satveer Singh) u/s 174-A I.P.C., Sessions Trial No. 1429 of 2011 (State Vs. Gyanendra and another) u/s 147, 148, 504, 506, 302/149, 201 I.P.C. and Session Trial No. 1430 of 2011 (State Vs. Sonu) u/s 25 of Arms Act, are hereby allowed. The impugned judgement and order is set-aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Appellant Sonu in Criminal Appeal No. 5651 of 2015 and appellant Satveer Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 4908 of 2015 are in jail. They shall be released forthwith, unless they are in wanted in some other case. As far as appellant Gyanendra in Criminal Appeal No. 4905 of 2015 is concerned, he is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. There shall however, be no order as to costs. All the appellants shall comply with the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. within a week from their release." Here are the reasons :-
(2.) The accused appellants, Gyanendra, Sonu and Satveer in the aforesaid appeals have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 03.09.2015 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No- 1, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 1429 of 2011, Case Crime No. 842 of 2011 (State vs. Gyanendra and others), Sessions Trial No. 1564 of 2012, Case Crime No. 842 of 2011 (State vs. Satveer Singh), whereby they were convicted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 504, 506, 302/149 and 201 I.P.C., P.S.- Loni, District- Ghaziabad. The accused-appellant, Satveer further challenged the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad whereby he was convicted for the offence under Section 174-A I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 659 of 2013, Case Crime No. 1160 of 2011 (State vs. Satveer Singh), P.S.- Loni, District- Ghaziabad. The accused-appellant, Sonu also challenged the aforesaid judgment and order, whereby he was convicted for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act in Sessions Trial No. 1430 of 2011, Case Crime No. 891 of 2011 (State vs. Sonu ), P.S.- Loni, District- Ghaziabad.
(3.) In the aforesaid appeals, the accused-appellants, Gyanendra and Sonu were convicted in Sessions Trial No. 1429 of 2011 (Case Crime No. 842 of 2011) and accused-appellant, Satveer Singh was convicted in Sessions Trial No. 1564 of 2012 (Case Crime No. 842 of 2011), for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. and all the three appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and the fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, all the three accused- appellants were directed to undergo further period of rigorous imprisonment of three months each. The accused-appellant, Gyanendra, Sonu and Satveer Singh were further convicted in Sessions Trial No. 1429 of 2011 (Case Crime No. 842 of 2011) and 1564 of 2012 (Case Crime No. 842 of 2011) respectively, for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years' and the fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo further period of rigorous imprisonment of three months each. The accused-appellants were also convicted in Sessions Trial No. 1429 of 2011 (Case Crime No. 842 of 2011) and 1564 of 2012 (Case Crime No. 842 of 2011) for the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. and they were sentenced to imprisonment of two years' and the fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months' each. The accused-appellants were convicted in Sessions Trial No. 1429 of 2011 (Case Crime No. 842 of 2011) and 1564 of 2012 (Case Crime No. 842 of 2011) for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years' and the fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months' each. The accused-appellants were also convicted in Sessions Trial No. 1429 of 2011 (Case Crime No. 842 of 2011) and 1564 of 2012 (Case Crime No. 842 of 2011) for the offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and were sentenced to life imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, the accused-appellants were directed to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of five years' each. The accused- appellants in Sessions Trial No. 1429 of 2011 (Case Crime No. 842 of 2011) and 1564 of 2012 (Case Crime No. 842 of 2011) were convicted for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo two years' imprisonment each. The accused-appellant Sonu in Sessions Trial No. 1430 of 2011 (Case Crime No. 891 of 2011) was convicted for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years. The accused-appellant Satveer Singh in Sessions Trial No. 659 of 2013 (Case Crime No. 1160 of 2011) was convicted for the offence under Section 174-A I.P.C. and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and the fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.;