MAHARAJDIN Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset it may be noted that there is considerable confusion whether the name of the appellant is Maharajdin or Mehrajudin. Somewhere he is referred to as Maharajdin and somewhere as Mehrajudin. Since in the memo of parties drawn up by the learned Trial Judge the appellant has been referred to as Maharajdin, we shall be referring to the appellant by said name.

(2.) In a well penned judgment dated 28.1.2010 the appellant has been convicted for the offence of having murdered Vijay Kant Shukla at about 9:15 PM at Jhuggi No.C-43/296 Ambedkar Basti. The date being 6.4.2006. The appellant has also been convicted for the offence of criminally intimidating Parmatma PW-1. Vide order on sentence dated 29.1.2010, for the offence of murder the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. For the offence of criminally intimidating Parmatma, sentence imposed is to undergo imprisonment for two years.

(3.) In returning the verdict of guilt, the learned Trial Judge has held that the testimony of Parmatma is creditworthy and hence has accepted the percipient evidence brought before the Court by Parmatma when he deposed as PW-1. Learned Trial Judge has further relied upon the testimony of Rafiq Ali PW-2 as per which from a bag containing clothes of the appellant, a cover of a knife Ex.P-8 was recovered which cover later on got linked to a knife Ex.P-7 got recovered by the appellant pursuant to his disclosure statement, on which knife human blood was detected. Lastly, appellant absconding has been held as nailing the guilt of the appellant.