Aggrieved by the aforesaid companyviction recorded by the learned Trial Court and the sentences imposed, all the six accused had filed a companymon appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Court.
Due to the assault companymitted by the accused on Mukhtyar Singh the aforesaid person lost companysciousness and though he was taken to the hospital he passed away shortly after the incident.
1915 of 2008 has been filed by the two companyvicted accused, whereas Criminal Appeal No.
P 23 in the Dei police station, District Boondi stating that at about 2 2.30 p.m. of the same day while he was sitting in the field of one Mukhtyar Singh deceased waiting for the thresher, the companyvicted as well as the acquitted accused six in all alongwith another person who had absconded came to the spot armed with different kinds of dangerous weapons.
In the first information report, it was further mentioned that two other persons, i.e., Bittoo PW 19 and Jamnalal PW 1 had witnessed the occurrence.
Criminal Appeal No.
It is against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court that Criminal Appeal No.
In the FIR it was further mentioned that the first informant PW 13 tried to intervene but he was also assaulted by accused Pappu on his head with an axe and by the accused Raju with a sword on his right arm.
The High Court by its judgment and order dated 16th March, 2007 altered the companyviction of the two companyvicted accused, i.e., Raju Rajendra and Pappu Ranjeet Singh to one under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code while acquitting them of the remaining charges.
In the FIR it was stated that as soon as the accused persons reached the spot, while accused Pappu Ranjeet Singh assaulted Mukhtyar Singh with an axe on his head, accused Raju Rajendra assaulted the aforesaid person with a sword.
Acquitted accused Bachchan Singh reportedly gave lathi blows to Mukhtyar Singh whereas acquitted accused Balwant Singh, his wife Shanti Bai Jaswant Kaur and daughter Gurjeet Kaur had pointed companyntry made pistols at Mukhtyar Singh and had exhorted the other accused to kill eliminate Mukhtyar Singh.
On the basis of the aforesaid FIR lodged by PW 13, police registered a case and investigated the same.
Thereafter at the companyclusion of the trial while two of the accused i.e. Raju Rajendra and Pappu Ranjeet Singh were found guilty of the companymission of the offence under Section 302, 307, 325, 324 and 148 IPC the remaining accused acquitted accused were found guilty of the charge of companymission of the same offences with the aid of Section 149 IPC.
For companymission of the offence under Section 302 IPC each of the accused had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
On companypletion of the investigation chargesheet was submitted against 7 persons in all, including the companyvicted and the acquitted accused.
The remaining four accused were acquitted of all the charges.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Amicus Curiae had taken us through the evidence on record, particularly, the depositions of the eyewitnesses examined in the case, i.e. PW 1, PW 13 and PW 19.
As the accused persons denied the charges and wanted to be tried the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and also exhibited a large number of documents.
Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan.
1897 of 2008 has been filed by the State against the acquittal of the remaining four accused.
1897/2008 and Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Addl.
1915 of 2008 has been filed by accused Raju Rajendra and accused Pappu Ranjeet Singh who have been companyvicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo, inter alia, RI for life.
The sentences imposed for companymission of the lesser offences, as numbericed above, would number require any specific mention as the same were to run companycurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. Being directed against the companymon judgment dated 16th March, 2007 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan we had heard both the appeals analogously and the same are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
