JUDGMENT

1. - This appeal has been filed by the abovenamed accused appellants against judgment and order dated 26.9.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghanagar (Sri Ganganagar) in Sessions Case No. 25/99 by which he convicted the accused appellants for the offence under sections 148, 302/149 Indian Penal Code and ;sentenced them in the following manner :

Names of accused appellants	Convicted under section	Sentence awarded to each accused appellant
1. Birbal Ram		Three years RI and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- , in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months RI.
2. Banwari Lal
3. Kishan s/o Shankarlal	148 IPC
4. Leeladhar
5. Bhaga Ram
6. Kishan s/o Birbalram	302/149 IPC	Life imprisonment & to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year RI.

Both the aforesaid substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. It arises in the following circumstances:

On 20.3.1999 at about 5.15 AM in the morning, one of the accused appellants, namely, Banwarilal (accused appellant no.2) lodged an oral report before PW-13 Chirangilal, who was SHO of Police Station Sri Bijayanagar District Ganganagar, stating inter alia that his younger brother Ramjilal had four sons; elder one is Birbalram (accused appellant no.1), younger to him Jeetram, next to him Bhagaram (accused appellant no.5) and next to him Hansraj. It was further stated in the report by accused appellant no.2 Banwarilal that Jeetram had died four years back and accused appellant no.1 Birbalram and others were living separately. It was further stated in the report by accused appellant no.2 Banwarilal that wife of Jeetram, namely, Ravanti Devi (hereinafter referred to as deceased no.1) was living separately and Jeetram had two sons and one daughter and both sons were living in their mother's parents' house, but daughter Kiludi @ Sumitra (PW7) used to live with her mother (deceased no.1 Ravanti Devi). It was further stated in the report by accused appellant no.2 Banwarilal that after the death of Jeetram, deceased no.1 Ravanti Devi had developed illicit relations with Satyanarayan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased no.2) and deceased no.2 Satyanarayan had started coming to the house of deceased no.1 Ravanti Devi and for that, accused appellant no.1 Birbalram and others used to remain angry with deceased no.1 Ravanti Devi and deceased no.2 Satyanarayan and they were in search of occasion. It was further stated in the report by accused appellant no.2 Banwarilal that at about 12 - 12.30 on 20.3.1999 in the night, accused appellant no.1 Birbalram came to him and informed him that deceased no.2 Satyanarayan had come to the house of deceased no.1 Ravanti Devi and they both were sleeping together and he (accused appellant no.1 Birbalram) and accused appellant no.4 Leeladhar had murdered both deceased with lathies. It was further stated in the report by accused appellant no.2 Banwarilal that upon this, he went to the house of deceased no.1 Ravanti Devi alongwith accused appellant no.1 Birbalram and he found that deceased no.1 Ravanti Devi was lying dead in the bakhal where cows were being tied down and in the - chowk, he found the dead body of deceased no,2 Satyanarayan and he also found accused appellant no.4 Leeladhar there. It was further stated in the report by accused appellant no.2 Banwarilal that PW-7 Sumitra @ Kiludi, daughter of deceased no.1 Ravanti Devi, was also there and she was weeping. It was further stated in the report by accused appellant no.2 Banwarilal that accused appellants no.1 Birbalram and no.4 Leeladhar had murdered both deceased.

That oral report of accused appellant no.2 Banwarilal was reduced into writing by PW-13 Chirangilal in the shape of FIR Ex.P/50 and he started investigation.

During investigation, site plan Ex.P/2 was got prepared by PW-13 Chirangilal. Through fard Ex.P/

Click Here to Read the rest of this document