Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J. - (1.) ALL these appeals arise out of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court in Sessions Case No. 157/2001 and as such they are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) BEING aggrieved of the judgment dated 31.1.2011 in Sessions Case No. 157/2001, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer, the accused appellants have preferred the aforesaid appeals under Section 374 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court convicted the accused appellant Farukh Chisti for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - in default of which to further undergo six months R.I.; for the offences under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced for two years S.I., with a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - in default of which to further undergo one month S.I. Doctor Mohd. Khalil Chisti has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/ - in default of which to further undergo six months R.I. and for the offence under Section 324 IPC, sentenced for two years S.I., and fine of Rs. 2,000/ - in default of which to further undergo one month S.I. The appellants Akil Chisti and Yaseer Chisti had been convicted for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/ - in default of which to further undergo six months R.I., and for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, sentenced for two year SI and fine of Rs. 2,000/ - in default of which to further undergo one month S.I. All the sentences awarded to the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that a Parchabayan of Saiyed Mohd. Aslam Niyaji was recorded at J.L.N. Hospital, Ajmer wherein it was stated that on 14.4.1992, a quarrel took place between Khalil and Khurshid Pahalwan, during a function at the house of Sabir. Thereafter, in the evening Khurshid had called Idris for having the matter settled and a compromise be entered between the parties. Saiyed Mohd. Aslam Niyaji along with Idrish and Shamim had then gone to the house of Khurshid. After some time, Tarik Mohd. informed that Khalil was calling him at his house. Therefore, all of them came to the house of Khalil where they found Khalil, Farukh, Yashir and Akhil present. On entering the house by Mohd. Aslam and others, the door was closed from behind and Khalil declared that they should be killed and no one should escape. Further, it is mentioned in the Parchabayan that Khalil was armed with a sword and Farukh had a gun. Thereafter, the complainant party tried to run so as to save themselves. All the accused persons had chased them. When the complainant party reached the roof, the accused Farukh fired with a gun at Idris resulting in injury on his right eye. The accused Khalil gave a sword blow which struck on his forehead. The accused Yashir and Akil were having revolvers and they had also fired. Later on, considering the injured to have been shot dead, the accused persons fled away. Subsequently, Idris succumbed to his injuries and died.
(3.) AFTER lodging of the First Information Report (90/92) on the aforesaid Parchabayan of Mohd. Aslam, the police investigated the matter and on completion of the same, a challan came to be filed on 20.7.1992 against the accused persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.5, Ajmer for the offences under Section 323, 324, 307 and 302 IPC. The learned Magistrate had then committed the case to the Court of Sessions which later on came to be transferred before Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer. The trial commenced with framing of charges against the accused persons. The learned trial Court framed charges against accused Farukh for the offence under Sections 302, 324/34, 307/34 and 342 IPC. The charges against Khalil Chisti were framed for the offence under Section 324, 302/34, 307/34 and 342 IPC. So far as the accused Akhil Chisti and Yashir Chisti are concerned, the charges were framed against them for the offence under Section 302/34, 307, 324/34 and 342 IPC.;