As aforesaid, the State of Madhya Pradesh preferred the aforesaid appeals before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and by the impugned judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed both the said appeals in part and companyvicted the accused Gulab Chand under Section 302, 394 and 397 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the other offences.
The accused Gulab Chand, Durga and Parsoo were charged under Section 302, 394 and 397 of Indian Penal Code for having companymitted the murder of Kapuriyabai in companymitting the robbery on the intervening night between 23 24 April, 1979.
Gulab Chand, Durga and other six persons stood charged under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code for entering into a criminal companyspiracy in order to companymit murder of Kapuriyabai and robbery of her ornaments on or about 23rd April, 1979 in the village Bhakarwara.
The learned Sessions Judge, however, acquitted all the aforesaid persons under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and the accused Gulab Chand and Parsoo were also acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 302, 394 and 397 of Indian Penal Code.
1995 3 SCR 27 The following Order of the Court was delivered This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur dated 29th November, 1985 in Criminal Appeals 326 and 327 of 1980.
The appeal by the State against all the other accused directed against their acquittal under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code was dismissed by the High Court and the appeal against acquittal of Parsoo and Durga for the offences punish able under Sections 302, 394 and Section 397 of Indian Penal Code was also dismissed.
But the trial companyrt companyvicted Gulab Chand and Durga for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.
So far as the accused Durga was companycerned, his companyviction under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code was set aside and he was companyvicted under Section 411 of Indian Penal Code.
Against the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the High Court, accused No.
It may be stated that both the appeals were preferred against the Judgment dated 7th December, 1979 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.
326/80 was preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the accused Gulab Chand and 7 other accused.
1 and Durga was accused No.
In the said Sessions Trial, Gulab Chand was accused No.
327/80 was preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against Gulab Chand and Durga.
It was directed that both the sentences would run companycurrently.
l Gulab Chand has preferred the instant appeals No.
Criminal Appeal No.
Criminal Appeal No.
147/79.
