- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 18.7.2009 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Bharatpur, Headquarter Deeg in Sessions Case No.30/2009 (92/2006), whereby the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: For the offence under Section 399: Sentenced to undergo 5 years' RI with fine of Rs.3000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months' SI For the offence under Section 402 Indian Penal Code : Three years' RI with fine of Rs.2000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two months' SI Accused appellants Hajar and Farid S/o Mamla have been convicted for the offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act also and sentenced to undergo 1 years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's SI
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 26.2.2006, one FIR was filed by the Police Officer, (Ex.-17) being FIR No. 82/2006 at Police Station, Deeg, wherein it was stated that occurrence took place at Village Khoh, where PW-8 Satish Kumar Yadav, SHO went and nabbed the accused appellants, who were planning of committing dacoity. The police officer also recovered Rs.7,85,000/- from the accused appellants. After investigation, the police submitted a challan for the offence under Section 399, 402, 307, 420 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. Thereafter charges were framed against the accused appellants, and which were read over and explained to them. Accused appellants denied the same and claimed trial. Thereafter the prosecution has submitted the witnesses and exhibited some documents. The statement of accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments of both the sides, acquitted the accused appellants for the offences under Section 307 and 420 Indian Penal Code , but convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated above.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 18.7.2009 passed by the trial court, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.;