Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - (1.) Since the controversy involved in all the three appeals arise out of the same F.I.R. number and judgment, hence, all the three appeals are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) Registry has put defects in the appeal filed by accused appellant Pappu @ Nawal Kishore. The present appeal is tagged with two separate appeals one filed by accused appellants Roop Narain and Ors. and another filed by accused appellant Amar Lal and others. All the three criminal appeals involve a common grievance, it is in the interest of justice and also to shorten the litigation the appeal filed by accused appellant Pappu @ Nawal Kishore is decided along-with both the aforesaid appeals by curing the defects.
(3.) By filing these criminal appeals under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the accused appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.7.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bundi (Rajasthan) (for short the 'learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 200/2002, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced all the accused appellants except accused appellant Pappu @ Nawal Kishore, as under : 341 I.P.C. : One month simple imprisonment. 376(2)(g) I.P.C. : Ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, each accused appellants shall further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C. : Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, In default of payment of fine, each accused appellants shall further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Accused Appellant Pappu @ Nawal Kishore 120-B I.P.C. : Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 365 I.P.C. : Three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.;