N.K. Jain, J. - (1.) The Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Jaipur City. Jaipur, vide its judgment and order dated 06.08.2002, in Sessions Case No. 41/2002. convicted and sentenced accused-appellant Bajrang Singh @ Guddu as under- Under Section Sentence of Imprisonment JUDGEMENT_215_LAWS(RAJ)4_2006.htm Both the sentences to run concurrently.
(2.) Being aggrieved with the same, the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that PW. 9 Manju Rao wife of Shri Mahendra Kumar lodged a written report (Exhibit P-5) at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur wherein it was alleged that she resides at Plot No. 142-A, Shakti Nagar, .Sodala. On 28.02.1997 at about 8.30 PM to 9.00 RM. three miscreants entered in her house. The description of the miscreants was mentioned in the report. They were having knives in their hands. It was alleged that on the tips of knives they committed robbery in her house and ran away. On the basis of this information, the police registered FIR No. 115/97 under Section 394, IPC and started investigation. On completion of the investigation the police submitted a chargesheet against three accused-persons, namely Kan Singh, Suraj Mai and the present accused-appellant Bajrang Singh, in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur city, Jaipur, under Sections 394 and 397 IPC, who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. During trial of the case, the accused-appellant Bajrang Singh absconded, therefore, vide order dated 30.03.2000 he was declared absconded and standing warrant was issued and trial commenced against remaining two accused-persons, namely Kan Singh and Suraj Mai. The Special Judge, Sati Niwaran, Rajasthan, and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur city, Jaipur, in Sessions Case No. 129/1998, vide its judgment and order dated 15.05.2000, acquitted the accused-persons, namely, Kan Singh and Suraj Mai. The accused-appellant Bajrang Singh was arrested and he was tried separately. He was charged with the offence under Section 394 and 397, IPC. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. Thereafter statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313, CrPC, wherein he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the prosecution. No evidence was produced in defence.;