Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved with the judgment dated 13.6.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur (for short 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No.348/2010, whereby the trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as under:- JUDGEMENT_296_LAWS(RAJ)5_2017_1.html All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that they are not challenging the findings of the trial court regarding the conviction of the appellants for the aforesaid offences, however, prayed that the sentences awarded to them by the trial court for the aforesaid offences be reduced reasonably. It is submitted that the appellants were arrested on 13.10.2010 and since then they are in custody. It is further argued that till date, the appellants have served out more than seven years of sentence including remission, out of the total sentence of ten years awarded to them by the trial court. It is also submitted that the offences, for which, the appellants were convicted and sentenced was their first offence and the appellants were not involved in any other criminal case except the present one. It is further argued that the conduct of the appellants in jail is good and looking to all the above facts and circumstances of the case, the sentences awarded to them by the trial court be reduced reasonably.
(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants for reducing the sentences awarded to them by the trial court and argued that the appellants had committed a heinous crime of dacoity and the prosecution has sufficiently proved their guilt before the trial court, therefore, the sentences awarded to them by the trial court is not liable to be reduced.;