SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants who have been convicted for murder of Mohd.Shahid and destruction of evidence on the basis of circumstantial evidence assail the common impugned judgment dated February 12, 2014 and the order on sentence dated February 14, 2014 directing them to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and a sentence of simple imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - each in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one and a half years for offence punishable under Section 201/34 IPC. The appellants have also been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/ -each to the heirs of the deceased Mohd.Shahid and in default of payment of compensation to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants Sumit and Sonu assail the judgment on the ground that no Test Identification Parade was conducted and the appellants have not been properly identified in the Court. There is no evidence to connect these two appellants with the offence committed. Admittedly, even as per the prosecution case the appellants had no role in disposing of the dead body and hence their conviction under Section 201/34 IPC is unwarranted. Further, no FSL report has been sought to show that the blood stained soil was recovered from the spot where allegedly the deceased was beaten to death. PW -26 SI Kamlesh Kumar witness to the seizures has stated that he was on leave on the said date and hence the seizures have not been proved. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate received the copy of the FIR belatedly and hence there is non -compliance under Section 157 Cr.P.C. It has not been proved by the prosecution that the seized articles were kept safely in the malkhana and were not tampered with.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Sushil Kumar assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the employer who could have deposed that Sushil and Saurabh were working with him has not been brought in the witness box. The place of arrest and the manner of arrest have not been put to the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and hence cannot be used as incriminating evidence. There is no overt act attributed to the appellant and hence he be acquitted.