- (1.) Heard Sri B. Malik, assisted by Sri Vinod Kumar and Sri P.C. Shakya, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Pankaj Rai (B.H.) learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.
(2.) This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants-Rammilan, Haridas, Bharatlal, Kamta Prasad and Phoolchandra under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C . against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.5.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Chitrakoot in S.T. No.112 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 69 of 2013, under Sections 147 / 148 , 304 / 149 , 323 / 149 , 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mau, District Chitrakoot whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 147 / 148 I.P.C. for two years rigorous imprisonment each with fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment, under Section 304 / 149 of I.P.C. for ten years rigorous imprisonment each with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo five months additional simple imprisonment, under Section 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. for one year rigorous imprisonment each with fine of Rs.500/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo one month additional simple imprisonment, under Section 504 I.P.C. for one year rigorous imprisonment each with fine of Rs.500/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo one month additional simple imprisonment and under Section 506 I.P.C. for one year rigorous imprisonment each with fine of Rs.500/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo one month additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that impugned judgment is against law and fact, charges levelled against the appellants were not proved against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. There is contradiction in the statement of witnesses of fact. Sentences awarded by the court concerned are excessive and harsh. Only one head injury was found on the body of the deceased but all persons were convicted and sentenced by the trial court wrongly.;