SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 395 and 397 IPC of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years on each count.
(2.) THE facts in brief, relevant for disposal of this criminal appeal, which are unfolded by lodging a written report, Ex. P1 on 9. 4. 94 by PW. 1 Kumari Meenakshi Rajawat, are that in the night at about 1. 00 when all family members were sleeping and the main gate of the house was closed, 4-5 persons armed with iron rods and iron pipes entered the room where her 3 brothers, namely Dilip Singh, Pradeep and Yagvendra were sleeping and started beating them, thereby causing injuries to them. THE accused also entered the room of her parents and gave them severe beating. THEreafter the miscreants entered the room of complainant and gave beating to her, Kumari Dheeraj and Sudha. THE FIR further reveals that the accused persons looted the cash and ornaments from the room of complainant's father. THE accused also took away with them one gun lying in her house. THE language of the accused was stated to be like U. P. language. THE age of accused persons was between 23-24 years and one of the accused had black beard. On the above report, having registered a case under Sections 395 and 397 IPC, the police proceeded with the investigation. In the course of investigation, police prepared site plan Ex. P. 2, got the identification of the accused done and prepared identification memos Ex. P. 3 to P. 7 and Ex. P. 49, seized the blood stained cloths of the injured vide memos Ex. P. 8 to Ex. P. 10 and got the injured persons medically examined. The police arrested the accused persons and effect recoveries of the looted property. Having completed investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against 6 accused persons in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having found the case exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, committed the case to the court of Sessions. The case came to be tried by the Special Judge (Communal Roits Cases), Tonk. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments and considering the evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before it, framed charges against the accused persons for offence under Sections 395 and 397 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed to trial. The prosecution, with a view to prove its case, examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited 50 documents. Thereafter the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The accused in their statements denied the prosecution allegation. Accused Lallu in his statement has explained that he was not kept `baparda' and was shown to the witnesses while he was already in police custody in some other case. Similarly, accused Jagdish has stated that he was shown to the witnesses before the identification parade could be held. However, the accused did not examine any witness in their defence.
(3.) IT may be stated that during course of trial, accused Ramesh expired and accused Teja has been absconding. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge found the prosecution case as alleged, correct and held the accused appellants guilty of comming offence punishable under Sections 395 & 397 IPC and accordingly convicted them of the said offence and sentenced them as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal by four appellants. I have heard Mr. A. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Madhav Mitra, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence and material on record. ;