LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-334

BIKAL BHANOT @ VICKY Vs. STATE

Decided On August 30, 2013
Bikal Bhanot @ Vicky Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.09.2012 and order on sentence dated 28.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge("ASJ") in Sessions Case No.58/2008 FIR No.153/2008 P.S. Janak Puri whereby Appellant Bikal Bhanot was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 397 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for three years for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and RI for ten years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo SI for two years for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.

(2.) According to the prosecution, the appellant along with his mother's brother(mama), co-accused Madan Sharma(since acquitted) committed murder of his father's sister's husband Bias Dev Sharma at his house on 15.05.2008 sometime between 12:30 to 3:30 pm. According to the prosecution version, deceased Bias Dev Sharma and his wife Raksha Sharma were planning to visit their two sons who were permanently settled in U.S.A. For this purpose, they recently withdrew a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from the bank. It is alleged that the appellant, being a close relation, was aware of the same as also of availability of cash and other valuables in the house. The motive for commission of the crime was robbery. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant and the co-accused being close relations of the deceased gained friendly entry to the house, slit Bias Dev Sharma's throat and decamped with valuables including Indian currency over Rs. 1 lakh, US $1000 and U.K. 500.

(3.) The case was registered on the basis of statement of Smt. Raksha Sharma. The prosecution filed a charge sheet against the appellant and co-accused (Madan Sharma) on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution version can be extracted from para 2 of the impugned judgment hereunder: