Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - (1.) By this batch of criminal appeals, a challenge is made to the order dated 26th September, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) in Session Case No.10/2016 (42/2014). The accused-appellants have been convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced as under:Accused-appellant-Bajranglal: For offence under Section 302 IPC - Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.Accused-appellant-Pramod Kumar: For offence under Section 201 IPC - Five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.Accused-appellant-Aslam: For offence under Section 201 IPC - Five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for accused-appellant-Bajranglal, initially, contested the appeal to seek acquittal of the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC but, later on, arguments were pressed to bring the case under one of the Exceptions given under Section 300 IPC. It was with the prayer that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted, it does not travel beyond Section 304 Part-II IPC. It is not only that no motive to cause occurrence could be proved by the prosecution but it was not otherwise a case of pre-meditation so as to cause occurrence. In fact, the occurrence took place on the spur of the moment, that too, under the provocation given by none else but by deceased-Mukesh. According to learned counsel for appellant-Bajranglal, the case falls under one of the Exceptions of Section 300 IPC. For the reasons given above, conviction for offence under Section 302 IPC has been challenged with the prayer to bring it under Section 304 Part-II IPC and, consequently, to interfere in the sentence. The detailed arguments therefor have been made and would be dealt with by us in later part of this judgment.
(3.) So far as accused-appellants-Pramod Kumar and Aslam are concerned, arguments have been made to challenge their conviction for offence under Section 201 IPC. A reference of the statements of PW4-Pawan Kumar and PW5-Mahipal apart from written report, Exhibit-P5 and FIR, Exhibit-P6, has been given. It is to show that they did not supply any false information to screen the offender so as to convict accused-appellants-Pramod Kumar and Aslam for offence under Section 201 IPC. The perusal of Exhibit-P5 and Exhibit-P6 shows that allegation against the accused is not for supply of false information so as to screen the offenders but is that proper treatment to deceased-Mukesh could not be given due to it.;