OM PRAKASH @ BABLU Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeals are directed against the judgment dated 21.05.2011 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in SC No. 70/2010 convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections- 302/323/34, IPC as well as the order dated 30.05.2011 sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment along with fine.

(2.) The prosecution s case is that on 26.08.2005 in the early morning around 8/8:15-AM, Police Station Connaught Place received information (DD. 4A, Ex. PW-1/A) about a dead body lying in a pool of blood in front of Gurdwara Bangla Saheb, in front of the bijlighar (electric substation). This intimation was given over to PW-19 K.K. Mishra, who reached the spot, with some policemen. The police team found that the body lying in a pool of blood had several injuries. Some articles were also found. The deceased was later identified as Balwinder Singh @ Jassa, a history sheeter (Bad Character BC ) of the area. Further inquiries revealed that Shahrukh, Munna, Bablu and Arjun used to sleep in the bijlighar compound and that they had absconded that day. PW-19, the IO, made an endorsement, Ex.PW-19A and later, on the basis of that endorsement, the FIR was registered in the case. The investigation was done by PW-23, Inspector Bijender Singh. The crime team went to the spot; the place of occurrence was photographed. The report of the crime team was produced during the trial as Ex. PW-16/A. It was alleged that apart from the articles seized from the crime spot, blood lying near the area, and earth, was seized. The body was sent for post mortem examination. After conclusion of that procedure, the post mortem report was collected; the report of the forensic laboratory was also later collected. It was alleged that all the accused were arrested on 29-8-2005. After the arrest of the accused, a charge-sheet was initially filed under Section-304 read with 323/34, IPC. The Trial Court after considering the materials on record framed charges under Sections-302/323/34, IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After due consideration of the material on record, in the form of testimonies of 28 prosecution witnesses, and the material exhibits, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused for the offences they were charged with beyond reasonable doubt and handed down the impugned judgment and order.

(3.) The Trial Court relied mainly on the depositions of PW-2 and PW-3. It was held that the testimony of PW-2 established that the appellants had attacked the deceased, after taking liquor and that the deceased was in the habit of quarrelling with people of the neighborhood. It was also held that the cause of death, as determined by the post mortem report, corroborated the testimony of PW-2, which in turn received support from PW-3. In view of these and the recovery of articles made during investigation the prosecution established its allegations against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.