MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) Since all these appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 21.12.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Cases, No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short 'the trial court'), they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) These three appeals have been filed by the appellants Vandana Parihar, Anoop Sharma and Bajrang Lal, challenging aforesaid judgment whereby each of the them has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC simplicitor and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default whereof, they were to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment; convicted under Section 302/120-B IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default whereof, they were to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment; convicted for offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default whereof, they were to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. Apart from above, the trial court has also additionally convicted accused-appellant Anoop Sharma for offence under Section 3/25 Arms Act and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default whereof, he was to further undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(3.) Facts of the case, as emerging from the record, are that a missing person report no. 7/2009 was lodged by one Dr. Krishan Kumar Mangal with Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur (Exhibit P-1) on 21.05.2009 alleging therein that his younger brother Mukesh Kumar Mangal @ Billu, aged 38 years, had gone to Jaipur city area along with his nephew Raghav Mangal in between 4.30 P.M. and 6.30 P.M. on that day for purchasing certain goods in connection with his business. During this period, he received certain phone calls and was heard saying to someone that he (Mukesh) would be soon coming to him. Then, he dropped his nephew Raghav with goods at his residence and went on the motor cycle saying that he would return back after sometime. He has however not returned yet. Despite all the efforts made by the informant and enquiries made by him from different places, friends, relatives, whereabouts of his younger brother, whose mobile number was mentioned in the report, could not be ascertained. It was also mentioned that last telephonic conversation with him took place at about 9.30 P.M. on his mobile phone.;