NISHA GUPTA, J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals are related to same incident hence, they are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) THESE appeals under Section 374 Cr.P.C., have been filed against the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror, Alwar whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Appellant Trilok Chand Under Section 302 IPC: to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo two months simple imprisonment; Under Section 460 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/ in default of payment of fine, one month further simple imprisonment; Under Section 147 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Laxman @ Laxminarayan Under Section 302 IPC: to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo two months simple imprisonment; Under Section 460 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/ in default of payment of fine, one month further simple imprisonment; Under Section 147 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Dulichand Under Section 302 IPC: to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo two months simple imprisonment; Under Section 460 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/ in default of payment of fine, one month further simple imprisonment; Under Section 147 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Puran Under Section 302 IPC: to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo two months simple imprisonment; Under Section 460 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/ in default of payment of fine, one month further simple imprisonment; Under Section 147 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Vipin Kumar @ Neetu Under Section 302 IPC: to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000 In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo two months simple imprisonment; Under Section 460 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/ in default of payment of fine, one month further simple imprisonment; Under Section 147 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year. (All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently) The short facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that on 12.12.1997 complainant Atar Singh (PW/1) has lodged a written report Ex.P/1 at Police Station Behror that he was serving with Arvind Singh Sodhi, owner of the factory. He and complainant came from Delhi on 11.12.1997. After dinner Atar Singh went to his room and complainant and other two servants Teerathpal and Mahipal went in their room for sleeping. Papu was also sleeping in the room situated in front of the factory. Today in the morning when he got up, he saw his employer's door was slightly open and when he went inside, he saw that his employers hands and legs were tied with a rope and he was died. On this report, FIR 517/97 was registered under Section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the present appellants for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 302 and 460 IPC and against other appellant Krishna Kumar @ Shastri the case was committed to Additional Judicial Magistrate, Behror, which was sent for trial to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror. The present appellants have been charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 302 and 460 IPC. The prosecution has examined PW.1 Attar Singh, PW.2 Sanjay, PW.3 Tirathpal, PW.4 Sadhna Sodhi, PW.5 Mahipal, PW.6 Dr. Harisingh, PW.7 Mangalram, PW.8 Surendra Kumar, PW.9 Virendra Singh, PW.10 Ranjeet Singh, PW.11 Banwari Lal, PW.12 Nandram, PW.13 Ranjeet Singh S/o Kishori Lal, PW.14 Mataram Rinba, PW.15 Ganesh Kumar, PW.16 Lekhram, PW.17 Pratap Singh, PW.18 Ramsingh, PW.19 Dharamveer, PW.20 Mukesh Modi, PW.21 Banshidhar, PW.22 Devkinandan, PW.23 Malusingh, PW.24 Mahesh Agarwal, PW.25 Sardar Singh, PW.26 Satish Kumar and PW.27 Shimbhu Dayal to support his case. Prosecution has also relied upon 58 documents. Statements of accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence witness was produced but defence has relied on Ex.D/1 and D/2. After trial, the present appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as referred above, hence these appeals whereas co accused Krishan Kumar has been acquitted. The State has not preferred any appeal against his acquittal.
(3.) THE contention of the present appellants is that there is no direct ocular evidence for the offence. The case rests on the circumstantial evidence, no specific motive has been established qua the appellants. Evidence of foot prints have been taken but link evidence is missing. Recoveries are false and could not connect the appellants with the crime and their further contention is that circumstances did not prove the chain of the incident and they are not compatible with the hypothesis of the guilt. Appellants have been implicated falsely hence they should be acquitted. Per contra, contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that Trilok Chand and Laxman were having animosity with the deceased as payment was due to them by the deceased and on the day of incident, they went to the factory for demand of payment knowing well that the deceased has brought the money and to have that money appellants Trilok and Laxman with the assistance of other appellants have committed the brutal murder. Foot molts also corroborated the presence of the appellants at the spot and recovery of articles belongs to the deceased is also clinching circumstance against the appellants. There is no lapses in establishing the chain and all facts and circumstances produced by the prosecution goes to show that only the appellants are the culprits and there is no infirmity in the reasoning and conclusion of the court below, hence no interference is called for. ;