LAWS(DLH)-2012-10-210

HEMANT @ PANDIT Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Decided On October 17, 2012
HEMANT @ PANDIT Appellant
V/S
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIJ Babu @ Nanne, Ishwar, Sonu @ Bihar and Hemant @ Pandit have preferred these four appeals against the common judgment dated 21st October, 2010, passed by the Sessions Court in case No. 149/2009 arising out of FIR No. 584/2008, P.S. Nangloi. The four appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) for murder of Bablu on 28th September, 2008. They have been sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ - each, in default of which they are to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE appellants have also been convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, having caused injury to Noor Mohd. (PW -2), and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sections 323/34 IPC.

(3.) AT the outset, we may notice that Rahul @ Kallu (PW -4) has not supported the prosecutions version that he knew the four appellants and had seen them beating a person mercilessly, on 28th September, 2008, at about 10.00 PM. In the examination -in -chief, PW -4 has stated that he did not know the four appellants but when he had reached the front side of F -5 Service Road, he saw four persons beating a man. He did not know the victim or the four persons. He did not identify the four appellants and has stated that they were not the persons in question. He has stated that on 29th September, 2008, he was taken to the police station and beaten up but he did not identify the four appellants or give any statement to the police. He was declared hostile and then cross - examined by the Addl. Public Prosecutor but nothing substantial has come out. PW -4 also denied the suggestion that he knew the accused or they had committed robbery, at the point of knife, or that he used to consume Ganja at shamshan ghat, in the year 2008. It is apparent that the said witness did not support the prosecution and casts doubt on the investigation. Therefore the evidence and material relied upon by the prosecution requires scrupulous examination.