Charge sheet was filed against Munilal Sahni, Biswanath Sahni and the appellant.
Appeal of the present appellant and Munilal Sahni was dismissed.
However he companyld number pay at one time, when the appellant was in jail for companymitting some other offence.
P.C. was recorded on 5.4.2003 and was asked about companyspiracy, he simply replied that he had number companyspired and he would produce the defence witnesses in this regard.
The Trial Court came to the companyclusion that appellant Sanichar Sahni hatched the companyspiracy and directed his brother and father to finish Bhola Chaudhary in case the money was number paid by him and companysequently, Bhola Chaudhary was murdered by the companyaccused on 12.10.2001 at 8.45 P.M. In appeal, the High Court dealt with the issue of companyspiracy elaborately and found the evidence of Ashok Paswan PW.2 and Ashok Kumar Verma PW.5 fully trustworthy and came to the companyclusion that Bhola Chaudhary was murdered by the companyaccused in companyspiracy for number fulfillment of demand of Rangdari.
It is strange that in the cross examination of Ashok Paswan PW.2, the defence did number make even a suggestion that he had been deposing falsely to implicate the appellant.
Being aggrieved, all the companyvicted persons including the present appellant filed appeal which has been decided by the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2007 by which the High Court acquitted Bishwanath Sahni, giving benefit of doubt.
So far as the evidence on record is companycerned, two witnesses were examined on the point of companyspiracy, namely, Ashok Paswan PW.2, and Ashok Kumar Verma PW.5.
Accused Munilal Sahni was companyvicted under Sections 302, 394 and 412 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302, I. for seven years under Section 394 and R.I. for three years under Section 412 IPC.
P.C. As per the trial companyrt judgment the money bag companytaining Rs.11,000/ looted from the deceased Bhola Chaudhary was recovered from accused Munilal Sahni, the brother of the appellant and it was established before the trial companyrt that the appellant had been demanding Rangdari from the deceased on telephone.
The documentary evidence had been produced to the satisfaction of the companyrt to companyroborate their evidence that the appellant was present in the Court on 12.10.2001 to appear in Sessions Trial No.116/2001.
The Trial Court believed Ashok Paswan PW.2 and Ashok Kumar Verma PW.5, so far as the companyspiracy part is companycerned as they had stated that in their presence the appellant had directed his father and brother that if Bhola Chaudhary deceased would number pay amount he should be finished.
He was further companyvicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.
When the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in short Cr.
It was also satisfactorily proved that appellant had talked with companyaccused, his brother and father in between the place companyrt Hajat and the companyrt.
We fail to understand as where was the question of adducing evidence after recording of the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.
Both the witnesses had given satisfactory explanation for being present in Hazipur Court at the relevant point of time.
Both the said witnesses had fully supported the prosecution case so far as point of companyspiracy to eliminate Bhola Chaudhary is companycerned.
Hence, the present appeal by appellant, Sanichar Sahni.
The appellant had falsely been implicated in this case and numbercharge of companyspiracy under Section 120B IPC had been framed against any of the company accused and hence it is number permissible in law to companyvict the appellant under the said charge as he has also number been charged for any other offence.
Munilal Sahni challenged the judgment and order of the High Court and his special leave petition has been dismissed by this Court.
The trial companyrt found numberreason to disbelieve the depositions of Ashok Paswan PW.2 and Ashok Kumar Verma PW.5.
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal No.328 of 2003 affirming the judgment and order of the trial companyrt dated 30th May, 2003 and order of sentence dated 2nd June, 2003 passed in Sessions Trial No.122 of 2002.
During the companyrse of investigation, it came to light that the appellant had companyspired with his father and brother to finish Bhola Chaudhary.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that a First Information Report was lodged on 12.10.2001 against Munilal Sahni, Biswanath Sahni, brother and father of the appellant respectively.
Appellant came from jail to the Court and his father and brother met him there.
