VINAY KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have challenged their conviction in Sessions Case No.466 of 2006, titled as ,,State v. Vinay Kumar & Anr., arising from the FIR No.528 of 2002, under Sections 302/449/376/411/ Indian Penal Code, PS Rohini convicting the appellant Vinay Kumar under Sections 120-B, 449/120-B, 376, 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Munish Kumar under sections 120-B, 449/120-B and 302/120-B of the IPC by judgment dated 7th September, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The appellant Vinay Kumar was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 120-B IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two more months for offence under Section 449/120-B of IPC and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default further rigorous imprisonment of two months for offence under Section 376 IPC and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 302/120-B of IPC. Appellant Munish Kumar was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two more months for offence under Section 120-B IPC; rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two more months for offence under Section 449/120-B IPC and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 302-120-B of IPC. The Sessions Court also ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently and the period of detention during investigation and trial be set off as provided under Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) BOTH the accused have preferred separate appeals against the judgment of the learned Trial Court, however since the facts as well as the evidence in both the matters is the same and interconnected, the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.

(3.) DURING investigation the scene was photographed. Photographs are Ex PW16/1 to 13. Finger prints were lifted as Ex PW18/A. A dog squad was called and the site plan was prepared. The bodies were also sent for post mortem and duly examined by Dr. Komal Singh on 20th August, 2002. On the floor near the double bed, a belt with the monogram of the Central School was lying, which was taken into possession. From the bedroom the bed sheet of the double bed, Ex PW2/H and an iron rod, Ex PW27/A was recovered, while from the roof, three ropes, one aari having a wooden handle and four blades were also taken into possession. Statement of one Narender Mehta, family friend of the victims was recorded, who had stated that he had passed from F- 24, main Road, Avantika at about 4:15 PM on 19th August, 2002 and he had seen Vinay Kumar/son in law of Neelam and his servant Munish going out of the house hurriedly. He had known both of the appellants very well at the time. Thereafter a notice u/s 160 of the Cr.P.C was issued and the appellant Vinay Kumar s/o Raj Kumar was directed to join the investigation. He was subsequently arrested on 20th August, 2002 at about 2:00 p.m. after which his disclosure statement was recorded. Subsequently appellant Munish Kumar was also arrested and he too had made a disclosure statement.