Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 19 -9 -1989 passed by Sessions Judge, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 74/1987 whereby the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: Accused appellants Bhagwan, Chhotkya alias Chhoteylal, Kaluram and Ramhet: Convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part 2 read with 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 4 years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/ -; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months RI Accused appellants Chhotkya, Kaluram and Ramhet: Convicted for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 6 months' SI. Accused appellant Bhagwan Convicted for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 1 year's RI. Brief facts of the case are as under: - - On 1 -3 -1987, a report was lodged by one Kajodmal at Police Station, Rajgarh. On the basis of said report, the police registered a case for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 147, 323, I.P.C. After investigation, the police submitted a challan against the appellants and co -accused Narayan before the Court concerned, who has committed the case for trial before the trial Court. The trial Court has framed charges against the accused appellants, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. Thereafter the prosecution has submitted the witnesses and produced some documents. The statement of accused appellants were recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court has acquitted the co -accused Narayan while convicted the accused appellants vide his judgment dated 19 -9 -1989, as indicated above.
(2.) AGAINST the said judgment dated 19 -9 -1989, this appeal had been preferred by the accused appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that accused appellant Chhotkya alias Chhoteylal has died, as such his appeal has become abated and the same may be dismissed as such.
(3.) SO far as the appeal filed on behalf of accused appellants Bhagwan, Kaluram and Ramhet is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this Court that looking to the fact that matter is related to 26 years' ago from today; they are not the habitual offenders; they belong to a respectable family; the accused appellant Bhagwan has remained in confinement for about 1 year, 6 months and 14 days; accused appellant Kaluram has remained in confinement for about 1 years; 10 months and 25 days; and accused appellant Ramhet has remained in confinement for about 9 months and 28 days, they are basically farmers and they are in olden days of their life, hence either they should be given the benefit of probation and if not, then they should be released for the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated hereinabove.;