Atul Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) This appeal was filed by accused-appellants (1) Dharma Ram s/o Kishnaji and (2) Chaina Ram s/o Dharma Ram, both by-caste Girasia residents of Jhamela Phali Peepla, Tehsil Bali, District Pali. Both the appellants in this appeal have challenged the judgment dated 13.10.2014 passed in Sessions Case No. 60/2005 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track), Bali, District Pali, whereby both the accused-appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code by life imprisonment with a fine of INR 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, each of the accused-appellants was ordered to serve one year's additional imprisonment.
(2.) When the appeal was filed, both the accused-appellants were in custody, but now one of the accused-appellants, namely,Chaina Ram is on bail, while other accused-appellant Dharma Ram is in jail. The period of custody suffered by them is said to be as follows:- (1) Accused-appellant Dharma Ram was arrested on 4.6.2005 and since then till today he is in jail. (2) Accused-appellant Chaina Ram was arrested on 10.6.2005. He was bailed out on 2.3.2006 but at the time of judgment, he was again taken in custody on 13.10.2006 and then he was enlarged on bail under Section 389 of Criminal Procedure Code on 8.2.2007.
(3.) In the memo of appeal, it has been argued that the judgment of the trial court is not based on facts or evidence, three assailants were named in the FIR but out of them, Roopa Ram, one of the alleged assailants was not charge-sheeted by the police, alleged extra-judicial confession before Lakha Ram and Neeba Ram has not been proved because both these witnesses have not come in the witness-box before the court, all the alleged eye-witnesses were present on the spot when the Investigating Officer had reached the spot but their statements under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code were not recorded on the same day and they were examined by the Investigating Officer only on the 3rd day of the incident.;