NARESH Vs. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 16th July 1997 in Sessions Case No. 127/95 FIR No. 73/92 P.S. Zaffarpur Kalan in terms of which the appellants have been convicted of charges under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 364 IPC read with Section 34 IPC as also the consequent order on sentence dated 17th July 1997.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, case of the prosecution is that on 10th September 1992, PW1 Umed Singh visited the P.S. Zaffarpur Kalan at around 12:50 p.m. and reported to Shri Rohtas Singh, SHO that on 05th September 1992 at around 3:30 p.m., he had gone to meet his cousin Rakesh (for short "deceased) at Taxi Stand Bahadurgarh. In the meanwhile, the appellants Naresh Kumar, Kishore Kumar, Charanjit and Anil came there and asked the deceased that they wanted to hire a taxi for going to Gurgaon. The taxi rate was settled as Rs. 350/ -. Thereafter, the appellants left for Gurgaon in Maruti Van No. DL -4C -4753 alongwith the deceased. The deceased, however, did not return back and since he often used to stay out of station for 3/4 days, they did not suspect anything. On 08th September 1992, ASI Raj Kumar of P.S. Bahardurgarh City told him that he had received an information from Bara Banki that four boys alongwith Maruti Van No. DL -4C -4753 had been arrested by Bara Banki Police. On receipt of this information, he (complainant Umed Singh) alongwith PW2 Rajender Singh and PW5 ASI Raj Kumar went to Bara Banki, where they found Maruti Van DL -4C -4753 of the deceased Rakesh parked at Kotwali Bara Banki. The appellants were also there at the police station. He took them aside and talked with the appellants separately and each one of the appellants disclosed that they had consumed liquor with the deceased at Gurgaon. Thereafter, they took him to Jhatikra Drain in Delhi, killed him and after committing the murder, they threw his dead body in the drain and took the van to Bara Banki for selling it. He also averred in his complaint that they returned back to Delhi on the morning of 10th September, 1993 and went to Jhatikra Drain in search of the dead body, which was found in the drain. SHO Rohtas Singh Yadav (PW27) recorded his statement Ex.PW1/B.

(3.) THE appellants were charged for the offences of abduction and murder of the deceased Rakesh. However, it appears that though one of the charges was for murder, but due to typographical mistake in the formal draft of charge, it has been described as an offence punishable under Section 304/34 IPC whereas it should have been under Section 302/34 IPC. Be that as it may, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that while defending the case, he was conscious of the charge against the appellants and this typographical error has not caused them any prejudice.