JUDGMENT :

By The Court:-

1. These two appeals have been preferred by the appellants Bhagwat Singh, Pushpendra Singh (since died), Nenu Singh, Ram Sigh, Manmohan Singh and Chhotu Singh under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.53/2001 whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 395 of the IPC and sentenced them to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-each and in default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo one year simple imprisonment.

2. As both the appeals are arising out of the same judgment, thus, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. During the course of appeal, appellant No.2 Pushpendra Singh (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.863/2001) passed away on 18.09.2017. An application came to be preferred on behalf of the legal representatives of Pushpendra Singh, namely Smt. Renu, Ms. Sapna and Mr. Yash, his wife, daughter and son respectively, for their impleadment as appellants and to allow them to continue the course of appeal. Of course, the legal representatives of deceased appellant have a right to seek acquittal and continue the appeal against conviction of the deceased appellant so as to remove the stigma of conviction of their family member who has permanently left for the heavenly abode. It is understandable that the family members that have been left behind would want to remove the blemish of conviction from the image of their beloved-deceased as human beings are part of a society and it is important for them to be able to live while keeping their heads held high. In any civilised society, the conviction of a family member tarnishes the image of the entire family and the family has a right to seek removal of the stain so attached to their lives as well as the life of the deceased individual. Even though the deceased-accused is no more but the way people look/perceive the family members of a person so convicted may hurt their sentiments. Sometimes, they may be deprived of getting service/retiral benefits duly accruable to the deceased employee which were not given on account of his conviction.

4. In this view of the matter, vide order dated 21.04.2023, this Court allowed the application for impleading the legal representatives of deceased Pushpendra Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 863/2001 and they were allowed to continue the appeal so as to make a challenge to the judgment of conviction on behalf of the deceased-appellant.

5. Bereft of elaborate details, the brief facts giving rise to the instant appeals are that on 23.06.2000, one Mohd. Harun lodged a report at the Police Station Bhim alleging inter alia that he was the owner of Kelika Jewellers, Beawar and was indulged in sale and purchase of gold and silver bars and ornaments. On 22.06.2000, he handed over a bag to Hanuman Singh and Chhotu Khan containing cash amounting to Rs.45 lacs and a demand draft of Rs.36 lacs which was to be carried from Beawar to Ahmedabad in an Ambassador car bearing registration No.RJ-01-2454. It was alleged that on 22.6.2000, at around 11.00 p.m., when the car was passing through the area of Police Station Bhim, 4-5 policemen and four other persons stopped the car and searched it, however, during search, nothing was recovered from the car. The aforementioned policemen were not convinced and directed the drivers of the car to sit in a Gypsy and then, kept on searching the car for sometime and after completion of search, they were set free and the policemen said that nothing was found in the car and thus, the vehicle was handed over to them. It is further stated in the FIR that the driver took the car to Ahmedabad and upon reaching there, the bag containing cash amounting to Rs.45 lacs and demand draft of Rs.36 lacs was not found and only Rs. 1 lac was found in the car. It wa