MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant Hansraj assailing judgment and order dated 07.07.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chhabra, District Baran, in Sessions Case No. 98/2015 (old No.272/2002), whereby he has been convicted for offence under sections 147, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149, 307/149 and 302/149 of the IPC and sentenced as under:- JUDGEMENT_422_LAWS(RAJ)5_2016_1.html
(2.) Genesis of this appeal lies in the incident, which took place in the night intervening 11.04.1999 and 12.04.1999, in which Mohan Lal, Ram Ratan and Rampal were murdered and Chhotulal, father of latter two, and three ladies, namely, Kailash Bai, Ramdhani Bai and Kastoori Bai received injuries. Total twelve persons, namely, Mohanlal, Raju @ Rajendra, Bajrang Lal, Chaturbhuj, Ram Singh, Ramdayal, Kalawati, Madanlal, Hansraj, Heera Lal, Phool Chand and Prem, were named as accused in the written report submitted by injured Chhotulal but the police filed charge-sheet against only nine accused. Phool Chand and Prem, both sons of Gopilal, have been apprehended yet. Accused Heera Lal was apprehended on 12.03.2011 and he was thereafter tried separately. Trial proceeded against remaining eight accused, namely, Mohan Lal, Raju @ Rajendra, Bajrang Lal, Chaturbhuj, Ram Singh, Ramdayal, Kalawati and Madanlal. Prosecution examined 28 witnesses upto 30.11.2004 against eight accused, except Hansraj (appellant herein). Then Hansraj was apprehended on 01.09.2004. Supplementary charge-sheet against him was filed on 14.02.2005. The trial court ordered his joining in the main case and thus he too was added as accused therein on 14.02.2005. By then already statements of 28 prosecution witnesses were recorded. The trial court, after framing charges against appellant Hansraj, again examined 30 witnesses. Evidence recorded against original eight accused remained intact. The trial court, instead of giving two separate judgments, taking into account 28 witnesses examined in presence of eight accused charged on 04.11.2003, gave a common judgment dated 27.09.2007 whereby convicted and sentenced six accused for offences under Sections 147, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326/149 and 302/149 of the IPC, and acquitted three accused.
(3.) Aggrieved by the said judgment, six convicted accused preferred D.B. Criminal Appeals No.1688/2007, 1844/2007, 1842/2007 and 1843/2007. This court, vide judgment dated 20.04.2015, disposed of all four appeals and set aside judgment dated 27.09.2007, without disturbing acquittal of Chaturbhuj, Ramdayal and Bajrang Lal, on the ground that State has preferred any appeal against their acquittal. This court held that procedure followed by the trial court was totally against the accepted legal position. The trial Judge was bound to give two separate judgments. It was also expected of the trial Judge to assign separate Sessions case number qua trial of accused Hansraj. Even if assigning same Sessions case number is considered as a procedural lapse, the trial court could mix-up the evidence, which has been recorded against two sets of accused. While disposing of the appeals, this court remitted the matter to the trial court for passing fresh judgments. The trial court therefore delivered three separate judgments. By judgment dated 18.06.2014, it has decided Sessions Case No.146/2011 - State v. Heeralal , and by two separate judgments each dated 07.07.2015 it has decided Sessions Case No.98/2015 (old Sessions Case No.272/2002) - State v. Mohanlal and Others and State v. Hansraj. Accused-appellant Heeralal has been convicted vide judgment dated 18.06.2014. Accused-appellants, namely, Kalawati, Madanlal, Raju @ Rajendra, Mohan Lal and Ram Singh have been convicted vide judgment dated 07.07.2015. Accused-appellant Hansraj has been convicted vide another judgment dated 07.07.2015. Aggrieved by judgment dated 07.07.2015, present accused-appellant has preferred this appeal.;