SURJEET MUNDA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Judgment, we shall dispose of the present appeal which has been filed against the Judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2018 and order on sentence dated 21.12.2018 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-05, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi vide which the appellant has been convicted U/s 392 IPC r/w Section 120 B IPC, Section 397 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC, Section 302 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 307 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC r/w Section 120-B IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of two months. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable U/s 397 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for two months. Further, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of six months and he has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

(2.) Briefly stated, the present case was registered on the complaint of Ms. Swati, daughter of deceased Yash Pal Soli. According to the case of the prosecution, Ms. Swati (complainant) stated in her statement that she works in Gurgaon and her parental house is situated at 14, Shrestha Vihar, Delhi. Her parents used to reside at the said address and she often used to visit her parents at the said house in Delhi.

(3.) The complainant further stated that one maid namely Purnima used to work at her parental house, who proceeded on leave one week prior to the incident. During this period, their old servant namely Surjeet Munda (appellant herein), who had worked with her parents from 2001 to 2003, came to her parents and her father kept him for work. The complainant went to meet her parents at their house on 04.07.2009 and asked her father to get appellant's police verification done. Her father kept the driving license of the appellant as I.D. proof.