JUDGMENT

R.C. Khulbe, J. - This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.09.2020, passed by learned FTC/ADJ/Special Judge (POCSO), District Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No.96 of 2015 "State vs. Prempal and others", whereby the appellants-have been convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under section 304(Part II) read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, with default stipulation; they were further convicted u/s 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. The appellant-Prem Pal was further convicted u/s 452 IPC and sentenced to undergo three years' R.I. along with fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default stipulation; he was further convicted u/s 8 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo three years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that a written information was given by the informant with Police Station, Kichha on 31.12.2014 with the allegations that on 31.12.2014 at about 3:00 p.m., present appellants along with other accused entered into the house of the informant and caused injuries to his son; the injured was then was rushed to the hospital for treatment where he was declared brought dead. On the basis of said information, an FIR was lodged at Police Station Kichha; during investigation, site-plan Ex.A13 was prepared; and post-mortem was accordingly conducted. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charges were framed against the appellants. The appellants denied the same and claimed for trial.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution got examined P.W.1 informant, P.W.2 Murari Lal, P.W.3 Bhagwan Dass, P.W.4 Smt. Savitri, P.W.5 Jai Singh, P.W.6 injured, PW.7 minor victim, P.W.8 mother of deceased, P.W.9 Noni Ram (Principal), P.W.10 Dr. D.P Singh, P.W.11 Sompal, P.W.12 victim's brother, P.W.13 Urmila Devi, PW.14 S.I. Manoj Kumar Kothari, P.W. 15 S. Umesh Ram Arya, P.W. 16 Retd. Inspector B.L. Verma, P.W. 17 Head Constable Rajiv Kumar and P.W.18 Dr. H.S. Pandey.

4. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused-appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they denied all the allegations and submitted that false evidence has been produced against them by the prosecution. They further submitted that they were not present at the spot.

5. The trial court, having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, concluded that prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of the accusedappellants beyond reasonable doubt and held them guilty for the aforesaid offences and, accordingly, sentenced them, as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred before this Court.

7. Heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the State.

8. It is submitted by learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants that the trial court has convicted the accused on the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution; there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned findings regarding conviction; he further submits that the coaccused-Mool Chand had preferred CRLA No.357 of 2020, 'Mool Chand vs. State of Uttarakhand', which was partly allowed by this Court on 08.03.2021 after hearing the parties; he further submits that both the appellants have already served more than six years in jail; they are the sole bread earners of their family; there was no intention of the appellants to kill the deceased; no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 304 (PartII) IPC; in such circumstances, learned senior counsel would submit that a lenient view may be taken to reduce the sentence of appellants to the extent of already undergone by them.

9. I have also gone through the record and found that in the present matter, the prosecution has prov