G.R. Moolchandani, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04/02/2008 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bhanswara in Sessions Trial No.12/2007, whereby the accused-appellant is convicted under Sections 302, 307, 323 and 324 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 with a fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to deposit the fine, further to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and under Section 307 of IPC for seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to deposit fine, further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 324 for one years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to deposit fine, further to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 323 for six month rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to deposit fine, further to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) The factual aspect relating to lodging of the F.I.R discloses that complainant Manilal lodged Ex.P.10 F.I.R stating therein:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... It was registered on 18/01/2007 under Sections 307, 324 and 323 IPC and charge-sheet relating thereto was submitted under Sections 302, 307, 323 and 324 of IPC. After committal of the case, trial was conducted by the trial Court, which concluded with the afore-discussed verdict.
(3.) Heard submissions of rival side. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that the findings of the trial Court are perverse and proper appreciation of evidence has not been done, there are vital contradictions in the prosecution story and ignoring all the infirmities, learned trial Court has passed impugned verdict erroneously, which is liable to be set aside and the accused-appellant is entitled to be acquitted after allowing the appeal. Learned public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the argument advanced on behalf of defence and has submitted that there is no infirmity in the findings of the trial Court, accused-appellant was a kith and kin of the complainant side, who was nurturing animosity and acted under the same, so after getting leave of both the kids under some false pretext from the school, accused committed heinous crime by fatally injuring both tender kids aging eight and six years and one of the tender child Piyush succumbed to his injuries and another injured Ankit has narrated entire veracity and happenings against the involvement of the accused appellant, hence, there is no error in the findings of learned trial Court, so the impugned judgment is upright and deserves to be confirmed.;