R.S.CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment dated 30.5.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has convicted both the appellants, Smt. Sanju Devi and Raju Singh, for offence under Section 302/34 and has sentenced them to life imprisonment and has imposed a fine of Rs.2000/ - each, and has directed them to undergo a further sentence of three months of simple imprisonment, both the appellants have filed two separate appeals before this court. While Smt. Sanju Devi has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1523/07, Raju Singh @ Rajendra Singh has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No.165/09. Since both the appeals emanate from the same impugned judgment, they are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that one Dalchand Saini (P.W.4) had submitted a written report (Ex.P.1) before the Police Station Sodala, Jaipur which when translated into English reads as under: - "To, The SHO, Police Station Sodala. Sub.: For lodging a report. Sir, It is humbly submitted that my sister, Sanju, has a shop in the name and style of Sanju Flower Decorator on Ajmer Road, near the Sodala Police Station. Both, Sanju and her son, Girraj, aged 12 to 13 years, run the said shop. They have kept a servant by the name of Raju Singh Rawat for working at their shop. He has been working with them for the last one year. My brother -in -law (my sister's husband), Shyamlal Saini, had expired about three years ago. Subsequently, her in -laws demolished the room which would have gone in my sister's share. Therefore, for the last three months my sister has been living in a rented room with her son, Girraj, and her servant Raju Singh. Tonight around 3:00 to 4:00 O'clock at night, my uncle (Dharam Ke Chachaji one whom I treat as my uncle) called me on phone and asked me to come to his house situated at Ashokpura. He told me that Sanju has come to his place. And Sanju informs him that her servant, Raju, has killed her son, Girraj. I informed my father and told him about the incident. I took my father and went to Ashokpura. We asked Sanju about the incident, she told us that at night Raju has strangulated her son, Girraj, by using a rope. His dead body is lying on the bed in the room. Therefore, we have come to the police station to file this report. Sd/ -"
(3.) ON the basis of this report, a formal FIR (Ex.P.2), namely FIR No.321/06, was registered for offence under Section 302 IPC against Raju Singh. During the course of the investigation, both the appellants were arrested. After completing the investigation, the charge -sheet was submitted before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The case was committed before the Sessions Court, Jaipur City, Jaipur, wherefrom it was transferred to the learned Judge. Both the appellants were charged for offence under Section 302, and in the alternative for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined eighteen witnesses, and submitted forty -six documents. In turn, although the defense did not examine any witness, but did submit two documents. After completion of the trial, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforementioned. Hence, these two appeals before this court. This court has patiently waited for the learned counsel for the appellants to appear before it. However, the learned counsels, Mr. Satish Chandra Mittal and Mr. Rohan Jain, have failed to appear before this court. Since the appellants are languishing in the Jail for the last eight years and five months, this court is of the opinion that it cannot wait endlessly for the learned counsels to appear and to argue the case. Having gone through the memo of the appeals, and the record of the case, this court is of the opinion that it would be sufficient if the learned Public Prosecutor for the state were to be heard and to decide the appeals.;