GHAN SHYAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by three convicts are directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.94/98, arising out of FIR 458/98. Though a common appeal (Crl.A.728/2001) had already been preferred by all the three convicts but a separate appeal (Crl.A. 365/2003) has also been filed subsequently by convict Raju. Since both the appeals are inter-linked, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The appellants question their convictions for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') for allegedly causing homicidal death of Smt. Seema, hereinafter referred to as the victim. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, with default stipulation of rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(3.) The prosecution version, unfolded during the trial, is as follows: On the fateful night of 9/10 July 1998 at about 2 A.M., when there was no light in the area, the convicts were playing cards on the roof of the house on the second floor. Another tenant in the house, namely, Raj Kumar, husband of the victim, told the convicts not to play cards as they were making too much of noise and disturbing his sleep. Upon this the convicts started abusing and beating him. On hearing the noise, the victim came upstairs and intervened, whereupon all the three convicts got hold of the victim and threw her on the 'jaal' on the roof of the first floor, as a result whereof she sustained injuries. She was removed to Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, where she was declared brought dead. On completion of investigations, charge sheet was filed against the convicts. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses to further its case. The convicts chose not to lead any evidence in defence. Placing reliance on the testimony of PW-4, namely, Raj Kumar, husband of the victim and the complainant and PW-5, namely Sube Singh, the landlord of the house, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the evidence led by the prosecution is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the convicts and has thus, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.