RAJ KUMAR @ RAJA Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.02.2008 passed in Sessions Case No.35/2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, arising out of FIR No.425/2006 registered at Police Station Nabi Karim on 29.12.2006. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for having committed the murder of one Rashid in House No. BB 448, Ashoka Basti, Nabi Karim, Delhi. The appeal is also directed against the order on sentence dated 14.02.2008, whereby the appellant Raj Kumar @ Raja was directed to undergo imprisonment for life and was also liable to a fine of Rs.2,000.00 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. In default of the payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE appellant<APL> Raj Kumar @ Raja </APL>is an eunuch and it is the case of the prosecution that he used to reside with the deceased Rashid at the above address as wife and husband, respectively. It is further the case of the prosecution that Rashid did not like the fact that<APL> Raj Kumar @ Raja </APL>used to bring one boy from Sadar Bazar in the room in which they used to reside. It is further the case of the prosecution that on account of this, there were a series of altercations and disagreements between the appellant<APL> Raj Kumar @ Raja </APL>and the deceased Rashid. It is also alleged that the appellant had asked Rashid to leave the premises and to go to his village which Rashid was not willing to do. Next to the room in which Raj Kumar @ Raja and Rashid resided, one Chandni, also an eunuch, used to reside. The premises in which the appellant<APL> Raj Kumar @ Raja </APL>and Rashid used to reside was a tenanted one and was on the third floor of the building of which the landlady was one Maya Devi [PW-9]. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 23.12.2006, at about 6.30 or 7.00 p.m., one Smt Seema, who is stated to be the appellant� 1/2s sister (cousin), came to the room of the appellant alongwith her husband, Kuldeep [PW-10]. It is the case of the prosecution that Seema and Kuldeep as well as the appellant and Rashid were all in the room. It appears that there was an argument between the appellant Raja and Rashid with regard to the boy from Sadar Bazar. In the meanwhile, PW-9 [Maya Devi] came to the room and demanded the monthly rent for the room. The appellant stated that he did not have the money available within him at that point of time on which PW-9 [Maya Devi] is said to have stated that she needed the money urgently as she was going to hospital. Consequently, the appellant is said to have given her a sum of Rs. 20.00, whereupon PW-9 [Maya Devi] left the room. Shortly, thereafter, PW-10 [Kuldeep], who is Seema� 1/2s husband, also left the room. In the meanwhile, PW-4 [Chandni], who was residing in the adjoining room, had also come into the room occupied by the appellant and Rashid. After the departure of PW-9 [Maya Devi] and PW-10 [Kuldeep], four persons were left in the room, namely, the appellant Raj Kumar @ Raja, the deceased Rashid, PW-5 [Seema] and PW-4 [Chandni]. At that point of time, the appellant stated that he had mortgaged a gold ring with the goldsmith and that he needed to take it back. Consequently, he, alongwith PW-4 [Chandni] and PW-5 [Seema] left the room and went to the goldsmith. Rashid remained in the room.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses. The most important of these witnesses are PW-1 [Dr Sunil], who conducted the post mortem examination; PW-4 [Chandni], whose role has been indicated above; PW-5 [Smt Seema], who is an eye-witness; PW-9 [Maya Devi], the landlady; PW-10 [Kuldeep], Seema� 1/2s husband; PW-8 [Mohd Aarif], who is the brother of the deceased Rashid; PW-11 [Abdul Jabbar], who is the uncle of the deceased Rashid; and PW-13 [Dr Mohd. Zahid], who is the doctor, who first declared Rashid to be dead.