VEERA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals are directed against a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 21-11-2011 in SC No. 70/2009. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life, besides other sentences.

(2.) THE prosecution alleged that the accused, i.e. the appellants Sonu s/o Veera, Veera S/o Middha and Rajesh @ Sahil S/o Sh. Charan Singh (hereafter referred to by their names) during the night intervening 17/18.05.2006, in furtherance of their common intention assaulted Ashok Kumar s/o Bishambhar (who subsequently died, hereafter referred to by his name or as "deceased") and Kailash s/o Bishamber (also hereafter referred to by his name, or as PW-2). It was alleged that the assault took place with knife between 10.45 PM and 12.45 PM in front of the house (of the victims), i.e. No. A-704, Bhalaswa Dairy, S.P. Badli, Delhi. THE prosecution also alleged that the accused, further to their common intention had inflicted repeated stab injuries on Kailash with such intention or knowledge and under circumstances that if it had resulted in Kailash's death, all of them would have been guilty of culpable homicide. THEy had also inflicted several knife blows on the deceased, which led to his death. THE matter was reported to the police officials and the statement of Sunita, (Ex. PW-1/A) was recorded and the FIR was registered against all the accused. During investigations all the accused were arrested; their personal searches were conducted and disclosure statements were recorded. THEy were medically examined. It was alleged that a "button dar" knife was recovered at the instance of Rajesh. After completion of the investigation, all the accused were sent up for trial. Upon being charged in the court under Sections 302/307/34 IPC (and a charge against the accused Rajesh @ Sahil) under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) IT was also argued on behalf of the Appellants that at the relevant time, many members of the public were present at the spot, but none was joined in the investigation nor examined by the prosecution in the court. The absence of public witnesses therefore, rendered the prosecution case suspect. The Trial Court ought to have scrutinized the evidence more carefully. IT did not do so, and gave blind credence to the alleged witnesses of recovery such as police officers. The impugned findings therefore, were in error of law, and unsustainable.