- (1.) The accused appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 22.07.2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.3/2004, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under:- "For the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to Life Imprisonment each with fine of 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, two months' additional Rigorous Imprisonment Each. For the offence under Section 448 I.P.C. to one year Rigorous Imprisonment each." Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) This criminal case was initiated on a report (Ex.P/10) lodged by one Mehtab Singh at Police Station Buhana, District Jhunjhunu on 02.06.2002. It was alleged in the report that in the night, intervening 1-2nd June, 2002, his cousin brother Lakhbeer Singh son of Sohan Lal Jat alongwith his wife Smt. Santosh Devi were sleeping outside the house, located in their agricultural field. It was further alleged that the accused Anil and Ashok sons of Mohar Singh, who are also the husbands of Smt. Sushila and Suman respectively, murdered Lakhveer Singh and his wife Smt. Santosh and ran away. Further, it is alleged that the crime was committed because the deceased had sent the daughters to the house of the accused appellants. It is also mentioned in the report that when Ramswaroop and Mehtab Singh, complainant were unloading manure from the bullock cart, they had suddenly heard noises coming from nearby fields and at the place of incident where they saw that the accused Anil and Ashok were running away towards the village Kalwa, having weapons in their hand. On the aforesaid report, a regular first information report (135/2002) came to be registered at Police Station Buhana, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC. Thereafter, the investigation commenced and on conclusion of the same, charge sheet came to be filed on 13.02.2004 before the concerning Magistrate. As the case was a one, which was triable by Court of Sessions, the same was sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, who had transferred it to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri for trial. Subsequently, the trial commenced after framing of charges by the learned court below on 16.08.2004 for the offences under Section 448, 302 and in the alternative Section 302/34 IPC. The charges were read over to the accused appellants which were denied by them and they had claimed for trial. The prosecution had, in support of its case produced 15 witnesses and got 49 documents exhibited, which were collected during the course of investigation. Later on, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they had stated that they have been falsely implicated. The defence did produce any witness in support of its case. However, it had produced four documents for their defence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned court below had convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the accused appellants and the same has come before us for hearing.
(3.) The learned counsel for the accused appellants has extensively taken us through the evidence on record of the learned trial court and made submissions so as to bring home his point that the learned trial court has committed illegality in passing the impugned judgment and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that the entire prosecution case revolves around the testimony of Mehtab Singh (PW-2). According to him, he was a chance witness and is neither reliable nor trustworthy. Further, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused appellants that though the incident had taken place in the previous night but the report had come to be lodged on the next day. Therefore, it has been submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay in lodging the report is fatal. The learned counsel for the accused appellants has also submitted that it was in fact the prosecution witness Mehtab Singh, who had committed the crime and had put the blame on the accused appellants for the purpose of grabbing their immovable property. In the last, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused appellants that Anil Kumar @ Ramphal was a juvenile at the time of his arrest i.e. 29.05.2003. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the accused appellant Anil Kumar @ Ramphal be set at liberty forthwith on this count alone. Learned counsel for the accused appellant has placed reliance on the case of Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551.;