MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 3.7.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 164/2011 by which accused-appellants have been convicted for offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500 each and in default whereof to further undergo imprisonment of six months each. They were also convicted for offence under section 323 IPC and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200 each and in default whereof, to further undergo imprisonment of one month each and also convicted for offence under section 341 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment of 15 days with fine of Rs. 100 each and in default of payment fine to further undergo imprisonment of 15 days each. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) Brief facts are that the appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court in a case registered on the basis of parcha bayan (Ex.P16) of Smt. Sukhdevi recorded by ASI, Police Station Kotwali, Dholpur on 09.09.2010 regarding an incident alleged to have taken place on the same day. On the said parcha bayan, the Police Station, Kotwali had registered an FIR No. 439/10 for the offence under Sections 324, 307 and 498A IPC and started investigation. During the investigation, Smt. Sukhdevi died on 12.10.2010 therefore, the case was converted to Section 302 IPC. After completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 302, 341 and 323 IPC in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the case was being triable by the Sessions Court and in due course, it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur for its trial. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 302 and 302/34 IPC, which the accused appellants denied and opted to face the trial. During the trial, prosecution examined 14 prosecution witnesses and exhibited 22 documents in support of its case. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and in their defence, exhibited certain documents. After completion of trial, the learned trial court after hearing the arguments convicted the accused appellants as above vide its impugned judgment dated 03.07.2012.
(3.) Shri Anil Jain, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that the findings arrived at by the learned trial court are contrary to the evidence produced by the prosecution and the settled preposition of law. The learned trial court has committed an error in not considering this fact that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it can not take the advantage of weakness of defence. The learned trial court has failed to consider that there are several major contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution witnesses made improvements in their court statements on many aspects.;