1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04/02/2008 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bhanswara in Sessions Trial No. 12/2007, whereby the accused-appellant is convicted under Sections 302, 307, 323 and 324 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 with a fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default to deposit the fine, further to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and under Section 307 of IPC for seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to deposit fine, further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 324 for one years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to deposit fine, further to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 323 for six month rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to deposit fine, further to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.

2. The factual aspect relating to lodging of the F.I.R discloses that complainant Manilal lodged Ex. P.10 F.I.R stating therein :-

^^bRryk tckuh ceqdke PHC [kesjk fnukad 18-01-2007 le; 12-30 PM

le; izkFkhZ Jh ef.kyky iq= vej th mez 35 o"kZ tkfr cqudj fuoklh [kesjk Fkkuk [knsjk is’kk gksVy us ceqdke PHC [kesjk lwpuk nh fd esjs nks yM+ds ih;w"k mez 8 o”kZ o vafdr mez 6 o”kZ tks [kesjk esa izkbosV Ldwy esa i<+rs gSaA vkt lqcg Ldwy x;s FksA vkt djhc 12-20 PM ij Jh ‘kkarhyky S/o Mw¡xj th cqudj fuoklh [kesjk us esjs gkWVy ij vkdj crk;k fd rqEgkjs nksuksa cPps ih;w”k o vafdr dks Jh jkts’k S/o ‘kadj yky cqudj fuoklh [kesjk us Ldwy ls ykdj Jh fot;jke S/o nsoh yky cqudj fuoklh [kesjk ds edku ds vkxs jksM+ ij djhc 12%00 PM ij nksuksa cPpksa dks dqYgkM+h ls tku ls ekjus dh uh;r ls flj is okj dj fxjk fn;s gSaA nksuksa cPpksa dks ekSds ls ygqyqgku voLFkk esa [kesjk vLirky yk;s gSaA mDr lwpuk ij eSa rFkk esjh ifRu lqfurk nksuksa gksVy ls jokuk gks [kesjk vLirky igq¡ps tgk¡ ij vLirky esa esjs nksuksa cPpksa ds flj esa pksVs vkus ls ygqyqgku voLFkk esa csgks’k gSA ih;w”k ds flj is dqYgkM+h ds 4&5 ?kko gS rFkk vafdr ds Hkh flj is dqYgkM+h ds 4&5 ?kko gSa o [kwu fudy jgs gSaA jkts’k o esjs iwoZ esa djhc lky Hkj igys >xM+k gqvk FkkA bl ckr dh nq’euh ysdj jkts’k us esjs nksuksa cPpksa dks tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls Ldwy ls ykdj dqYgkM+h ls flj ij okj dj pksVs igq¡pkbZ gSA jkts’k ekSds ls Hkkx x;k gSA bRryk djrk gw¡A dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djkosaA esjs cPpksa dks dqYgkM+h ls jkts’k }kjk ekjrs gq, ‘kkafryky o Jh fot;jke dh vkSjr us ns[kk gSA

Sd/-

ef.kyky^^

It was registered on 18/01/2007 under Sections 307, 324 and 323 IPC and charge-sheet relating thereto was submitted under Sections 302, 307, 323 and 324 of IPC. After committal of the case, trial was conducted by the trial Court, which concluded with the afore-discussed verdict.

3. Heard submissions of rival side. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that the findings of the trial Court are perverse and proper appreciation of evidence has not been done, there are vital contradictions in the prosecution story and ignoring all the infirmities, learned trial Court has passed impugned verdict erroneously, which is liable to be set aside and the accused-appellant is entitled to be acquitted after allowing the appeal.

Learned public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the argument advanced on behalf of defence and has submitted that there is no infirmity in the findings of the trial Court, accused-appellant was a kith and kin of the complainant side, who was nurturing animosity and acted under the same, so after getting leave of both the kids under some false pretext from the school, accused committed heinous crime by fatally injuring both tender kids aging eight and six years and one of the tender child Piyush succumbed to his injuries and another injured Ankit has narrated entire veracity and happenings against the involvement of the accused-appellant, hence, there is no error in the findings of learned trial Court, so the impugned judgment is u