SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral):

Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, both the appeals are being disposed of vide instant common order and judgment.

The above mentioned appeals have been preferred by the convicts/appellants, hereinafter being referred to as ‘appellants’ only, in the backdrop of a judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.11.2004, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge (ad hoc), Fast Track Court Ludhiana. The above mentioned judgment was passed in a trial conducted by the above mentioned Court for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 379 and 34 Indian Penal Code, hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’ only.

In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that, that for the commission of aforesaid offence the FIR No. 144, dated 10.10.2000 was lodged in Police Station Bati Jodhewal. Pursuant to above mentioned FIR when the investigation was complete, all the three appellants were sent to face trial for the commission of above mentioned offence. The above mentioned trial culminated into conviction of the appellants and they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under:-

Heard.

It has been contended on behalf of appellants that the impugned judgment of conviction as well as order of sentence are against the fact as well as law, and that the learned trial Court, merely, on the basis of assumptions and presumptions has recorded a finding of conviction against the appellants. As per learned counsel for the appellants the evidence adduced by the appellants was contradictory, discrepant and inadequate to prove charge for the commission of above offence under Sections 379 and 307 and 34 of IPC, against the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that in order to prove charge against the appellants, the prosecution was supposed to lead evidence which could have been sufficient to prove the allegations, contained in the charge, beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts, but the evidence was so inconsistent and deficient that it had failed to meet the standard prescribed under the law. In view of above, the learned counsel for the appellants has sought for the indulgence and interference in the impugned verdict. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged that by exercising the appellate jurisdiction the present appeals be accepted and the impugned order be set-aside.

In the alternative the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that in the present case, if the appeals preferred by the appellants with regard to judgment of conviction do not find favour of this Court, the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. According to learned counsel for the appellants two appellants namely ‘Rakesh Kumar’ and ‘Jarnail Singh’ have already undergone imprisonment for a period of more than two years in this case, whereas the third appellant namely ‘Ram Paul’ has already undergone imprisonment for a period of more than five months. The learned counsel for the appellants has further contend