Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 26.4.2008 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar in Sessions Case No. 43/2006, whereby the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as under: For the offence under Section 365 read with 120B IPC: To undergo 3 years' SI with fine of Rs. 500/ -; and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's Additional S.I. For the offence under Section 365 IPC: To undergo 3 years' SI with fine of Rs. 500/ -; and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's Additional SI. For the offence under Section 366A read with Section 120B IPC: To undergo 3 years' SI with fine of Rs. 500/ -; and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's Additional SI. For the offence under Section 366A IPC: To undergo 3 years' SI with fine of Rs. 500/ -; and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month's Additional SI. Brief facts of the case are as under: On 22.4.2006, a report was lodged by Shri Bhagwan Sahai S/o. Shri Hari Ram at Police Station, Raini, District Alwar. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 366A and 120B IPC before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Alwar. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter the case was transferred by the Sessions Judge to the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellants for the offence under Section 365 read with Section 120B, 365, 366A read with 120B and Section 366A IPC. Accused appellants denied for the same and claimed for trial. Thereafter the prosecution produced as many as 19 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. The statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellants, as indicated above, vide judgment dated 26.4.2008. Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.4.2008 passed by the trial court, this appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has contended that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence submitted by the prosecution in accordance with law. He has not considered the averments made by the appellants. He has further contended that there is no independent witness of the alleged incident and all the witnesses, which have been produced by the prosecution are interested witnesses and they are the family members of the complainant. He has further contended that the trial court has not considered this fact that FIR had been lodged after a great delay and delay was not explained by the prosecution. He has further drawn the attention of this Court, specifically on the statement of Ms. Mata, PW -10, and contended that she has made improvements/contradictions and omissions in her testimony. He has further contended that this witness has suppressed the true facts of the occurrence and not explained properly. The trial court has also not examined the aforesaid witness in a proper manner in accordance with law. Further he has contended that trial court has not considered the fact that there are some dispute about Suman, who is the wife of Man Singh, younger brother of main accused Kishan Singh. Suman is the sister of prosecutrix Miss Mamta. The family members of Suman wants to take divorce from Man Singh. The complainant party make a pressure on the relatives of main accused Kishan Singh. For this reason, they involved the name of the appellants in this matter. He has further requested to this Court 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 offence took place approximately for about 8 years ago; the appellants are not the habitual offenders; and they belong to a social and respectable family; there is no minimum sentence in the conviction passed by the trial court, as indicated above; accused Kadu Ram has remained in confinement for about 45 days; accused Lachchha @ Laxmi Narayan has remained in confinement for about 18 days; accused Raghuveer has remained in confinement for about 34 days and accused Nawal @ Naval Kishore has remained in confinement for about 18 days; this is the first offence of their life; they are not the main accused and the main accused of this case has already served the sentence, hence either the benefit of probation be given to them, or they should be released for the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated here -in -above. Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.;