MOHD. SHAKIL @ BHOLA Vs. DEVRAJ @ DEVOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants (hereafter referred to by their names, i.e. Mohd. Shakeel, Kamal Tyagi, Sunil and Devraj) are aggrieved by the judgment dated 15-11-2011, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in SC No. 106/2011 whereby they were found guilty of the murder of Deepak Parashar ("the deceased") and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/120B, IPC. THE deceased, a lawyer was engaged by the appellants Mohd. Shakeel, Kamal Tyagi and Devraj to defend them in several cases. THE prosecution had alleged that the deceased used to demand payment towards his fees from the appellants, which was the motive for murder; further, they suspected him of having divulged some information to one Kishan Solanki. THE appellants, except Sunil, were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, and pay fine; Sunil was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and pay fine.

(2.) THE prosecution alleged that on 17.03.2005 the deceased called Kamal Tyagi, demanding payment of fees. At that time, three accused i.e., Kamal Tyagi, Devraj and Mohd. Shakil were in Kamal Tyagi's car (DL7CD-1466). THEy asked the deceased to reach Main Road near Mahavir Enclave where they picked him up. THE car was driven by Mohd. Shakeel. In the running car, Devraj shot the deceased on the chest; Shakeel also shot and stabbed him and Kamal Tyagi strangulated the deceased. In the process of strangulating him, Kamal Tyagi himself sustained knife injuries on his hand. THE deceased died inside the vehicle. THE three accused then threw his body near the flyover near the railway line in Shahabad, Mohd. Pur. THE prosecution alleged that since there were blood stains in the car, it was taken by the accused Sunil to Mahmudabad Village in Ghaziabad and burnt there to destroy evidence. It was alleged that while doing so, he too suffered burn injuries.

(3.) DURING the course of the trial, 48 witnesses were examined, medical and forensic evidence was brought on the record, and all of this was put to the accused under Section 313, CrPC. They denied their involvement in the crime. The accused led their own evidence through deposition of two witnesses, DW-1 and DW-2. On the basis of this evidence, the trial court found Mohd Shakil, Devraj and Kamal Tyagi guilty of the offences under Section 302/120B IPC and 201 IPC. Sunil was convicted under Sections 201/120B IPC. It is against this judgment and sentence that this appeal has been preferred.