Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

These two criminal appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7.4.2014 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahpura District Jaipur ('the learned Trial Court' for short hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 34/2010, hence same are being decided by this common judgment.

By filing instant appeals the accused appellants have challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, by which they have been sentenced as under :

Under Section 460 I.P.C. :

Life imprisonment, Rs. 20,000/- as fine and in default of payment of fine, each of the accused appellant has to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.

Under Section 380 I.P.C. :

One year simple imprisonment, Rs. 2,000/- as fine and in default of payment of fine, each of the accused appellant has to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Mahant Hariprakash Sharma (PW-2), submitted a written report (Ex.P-2) on 21.5.2010 at Police Station Viratnagar to this effect that he had constructed a temple of Jeen Mata on Ganeshji Road at Viratnagar. He further submitted that for care and worship of said temple, he had kept one Ramesh Chand S/o Hemraj Prajapati there as Pujari, who was R/o Shahganj, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. Complainant further submitted in the written report that on 20.5.2010 some unknown thieves entered in the temple premises with an intention to steal and tried to break the lock of 'tijori'. When the 'Pujari' (Priest) of the temple woke up, he was murdered. The complainant further submitted that he received an information about the alleged incident on mobile, upon that he has come to Virat Nagar. Now, he is taking the legal action.

3. On the basis of this written report, an F.I.R. No. 62/2010 (Ex.P-3) was got registered for the offence under Section 460 I.P.C. During the course of investigation the accused appellants were arrested including one more accused Kamlesh @ Kamal. After investigation, the police submitted challan in the jurisdictional Court under Sections 302, 460, 380/34 I.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court took cognizance against the accused persons. The case was committed for trial to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge Shahpura, District Jaipur i.e. learned Trial Court as referred in preceding para. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offence under Sections 302, 460 and 380 I.P.C., who denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 27 witnesses and got exhibited 112 documents. Thereafter, the statements of the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence the accused appellants produced one witness namely DW-1 Babulal.

5. The learned Trial Court after hearing learned Counsel for the accused appellants and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State acquitted both the accused appellants from the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. by giving them benefit of doubt and also acquitted co-accused Kamlesh @ Kamal S/o Kailash Chand from the offence under Sections 302, 460 and 380 I.P.C. by giving him the benefit of doubt but both of them have been convicted and sentenced of punishment under Sections 460 and 380 I.P.C. for the offences as indicated herein above.

6. The accused appellants dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence have preferred two separate criminal appeals before the Court for quashing and setting aside the same and also for acquitting them from the aforesaid offences.

7. Learned Counsel for the accused appellants submitted that there was no motive on the part of the accused appellants to commit the offence. Counsel submitted that the witnesses of last seen, which were five in numbers, had not supported the case of the prosecution. The mould which was taken from the si