ATUL KUMAR JAIN, J. - (1.) ON the basis of investigation in relation to FIR No. 280/2005 under Sections 302 IPC, the Police Station, Rajnagar had filed a charge -sheet in the court below and a Sessions Case No. 27/2005, on the basis of that charge -sheet, was registered in the court of Additional Sessions Judge(Fast Track), Rajsamand. There were two accused in the case, one was Ramesh Meghwal and another was Ramesh Meena. The case was decided by the trial court on 19.11.2005 and the accused -persons were convicted and sentenced as follows: - Ramesh Meghwal: (1) Sec. 460 IPC: Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/ - and, in default of payment of fine, three months' imprisonment additionally. (2) Sec. 302 IPC: Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/ - and, in default of payment of fine, three months' imprisonment additionally. Ramesh Meena: (1) Sec. 460 IPC: Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/ - and, in default of payment of fine, three months' imprisonment additionally. (2) Sec. 302/34: Life imprisonment with a fine of IPC Rs.500/ - and, in default of payment of fine, three months' imprisonment additionally.
(2.) AGAINST the aforesaid judgment dated 19.11.2005, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 909/2005 was filed by convict Ramesh Meghwal and D.B.Criminal Appeal No. 29/2006 was filed by convict Ramesh Meena. Both the appeals are against the same judgment, hence they are being decided by this common judgment. Accused -appellant Ramesh Meena was arrested on 22.6.2005 and accusedappellant Ramesh Meghwal was arrested on 23.6.2005 and since then both the accused -appellants are continuously in custody.
(3.) THE appellants were convicted by the trial court on the basis of recovery of some 'chillar' and recovery of blood stained clothes and axe etc. allegedly used in the commission of murder of Ramesh Sharma, but no motive has been imputed against the appellants by the prosecution that why they have committed murder of their employer -contractor. It has been said that both the accused -appellants were working as labour in the mines of Morvad and in the same concern the deceased Ramesh Sharma was working as contractor, who used to provide services of the labours for the job assigned by the management of the factory. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution case is based only on the circumstantial evidence and planted recovery of some articles and no motive has been imputed against any of the appellants and hence the prosecution story is full of doubts and in such a doubtful case of the prosecution, the conviction of the appellants should be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor admits that though no motive could be traced against the appellants but as per him, the recovery of articles including blood stained clothes and the weapon used in committing murder and some 'chillar' from the possession of appellants is sufficient to uphold their conviction and it has been prayed by the learned Public Prosecutor that both the appeals should be dismissed. We have heard both the sides and we have perused the impugned judgment. We have also perused the record of the case.;