P. K. Lohra, J. - (1.) Accused-Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. to challenge impugned judgment dated 19th of July, 2014, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 307, 420 IPC. The learned trial Court by the impugned judgment while indicting appellant for offence under Section 307 IPC has handed down sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. Likewise, for offence under Section 420 IPC, appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years' with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's simple imprisonment. The learned trial Court has ordered to run both the sentences concurrently.
(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that Parcha Bayan of Pana Devi was recorded at Hanumangarh Hospital by Sub Inspector on 21.08.2012 wherein she stated that she is blind and her husband has died and she having no issue lives in village Aherwan with his brother Gyan, whose son's name is Jhandu. That day, on the pretext of treatment of her eyes Jhandu had taken her to the Bank and got withdrawn Rs.4,000 and thereafter taken her in a bus to a remote place and gave beatings to her and thereafter pushed her in a canal. After falling in the canal, fortunately, one tree came to her catch and holding that tree she kept on calling for help to save her. Subsequently, police and other people came to the spot and pulled her out from the canal. On that basis, FIR No.03/2012 came to be registered and the police after investigation filed charge-sheet against appellant for offence under Sections 307, 420 IPC before the Court concerned wherefrom the case was committed to the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court heard on charge and framed charge against accused appellant for the said offence. During trial, in order to prove charge against accused-appellant, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., however, he produced no witness in his defence.
(3.) The learned trial Court, after appreciation of evidence and material available on record, found both the offences against the appellant fully proved and considering his culpability held him guilty and awarded sentences, as aforesaid.;