Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) These three appeals arise out of common incident with regard to which first information report was lodged by Shiv Bahgwan with Police Station Losal at 8.15 A.M. on 06th March, 2009. Appeal No. 1284/2017 and 1444/2017 have been filed by the accused-appellants Jagdish and Prakash respectively against the judgment dated 01.06.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar (for short 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No. 48/2015. Appeal No. 1633/2017 has been filed by the accused-appellant Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh against the judgment dated 01.06.2017 passed by the trial court in Sessions Case No. 47/2015. By aforesaid two judgments, each of the accused-appellants has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 397 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' additional simple imprisonment and for offence under Section 397 read with Section 34 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' additional simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) Facts of the case are that Shiv Bhagwan submitted a written report (Exhibit P-7 in trial of Prakash and Jagdish) to S.H.O. Police Station Losal at 8.15 A.M. on 06th March, 2009 alleging therein that he along with his cousin Ram Chandra son of Goduram was present in the previous night i.e. 05.03.2009 at bus stand, Losal at about 8.00-8.30 P.M. Ram Chandra had recently purchased a Bolero vehicle bearing No. RJ-29 UA 261 5-7 days ago, which was parked at the bus stand. At that time, 3-4 persons came there and told that they wanted to hire Bolero vehicle to go to Kuchaman. Ram Chandra demanded a sum of Rs. 500/-. These persons agreed for that amount. Ram Chandra took these four persons in his Bolero Vehicle and started for Kuchaman. Ram Chandra was expected to return back in the same night. When he did not return back, the informant went to bus stand on the following morning and enquired about him. Durgaram son of Puraram told him that he had seen Ram Chandra quarreling with 3-4 persons in the Bolero Vehicle at Kuchaman Stand, Losal. He thought that they might be relatives of Ram Chandra. The informant alleged that these persons with the intention to loot the vehicle had hired the Bolero of Ram Chandra and eventually looted the vehicle. He apprehended that these persons might have subjected Ram Chandra to beating and thrown him en-route somewhere. It was prayed that action be taken against the culprits.
(3.) On the basis of aforesaid written report, the police registered FIR (Exhibit P-8) for offences under Sections 365 and 392 IPC and commenced investigation. After completion of investigation, charge sheet against the accused-appellants Prakash,Jagdish and Omprakash was filed for offence under Section 302, 397 read with Section 34 IPC. Charge sheet against accused-appellant Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh was filed with the aid of Section 299 Cr.P.C. for the same offences before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sikar. Subsequently, when he was arrested, supplementary charge sheet was also filed against him. The concerned Court committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Sikar wherefrom it was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar for trial. Separate trial for both sets of accused-appellants proceeded. As far as trial of accused-appellants Jagdish and Prakash is concerned, the trial court framed charges against them for offence under Section 302/34 and 397/34 IPC which they denied and claimed to be tried. Case of the accused Om Prakash was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board as he was found to be juvenile. The prosecution produced 27 witnesses and exhibited 58 documents. Though the defence did not produce any witness but exhibited 12 documents. Insofar as trial of Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh is concerned, the prosecution in that case produced 25 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents. The defence in that case also did not produce any witness but exhibited 5 documents. The aforesaid accusedappellants in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. alleged false implication. Upon completion of trial, the trial court by two separate judgments delivered on the same date convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated as above. Hence, these appeals.;