Atul Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) IN D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 391/2006 accused -appellant Uda and in D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 446/2006 accused -appellants Ratan Lal and Heera have challenged the veracity of judgment dated 22.3.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 128/2005 by which the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur had convicted and sentenced all the three accused -appellants as follows: The trial court has also ordered that all the substantive sentences of each of the accused -appellants shall run concurrently.
(2.) SINCE both the appeals are against one and the same judgment, so they are being decided here by a common judgment. It has been argued on behalf of the accused -appellants that the judgment of the trial court is totally against the facts as well as against law. It has also been argued that PW -1 Smt. Pooni Bai is not a witness of sterling worth and she should not have been blindly relied upon by the trial court to convict the accused -appellants. It has also been argued that there was delayed examination of Smt. Pooni Bai under Section 161, Cr.P.C. causing doubt in the prosecution story because she has not named Heera and Uda as assailants of her husband Navala. It has also been argued that Uda was said to be having an axe at the time of the incident, though allegedly, a 'latth' was recovered from him. It has also been argued that there was no motive for Uda and Heera to cause death of Navala. Alleged recoveries from the appellants are not duly proved as per the appellants but it has also been argued that blood stains on axe have not been proved to be of blood group of Navala. It has been argued that Navala and Smt. Pooni have received injuries but it is not proved that who had caused those injuries and in the circumstances, it has been prayed by all the accused -appellants that the judgment of the trial court should be quashed and they should be acquitted from all the charges for which they have been convicted.
(3.) ON the other hand, it has been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court and the prosecution case is well proved against all the accused -appellants. It has also been argued that minor discrepancies and minor contradictions, if any found in the statements of the prosecution witnesses should be ignored to do the substantive justice in the matter.;