MADHUSUDAN Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Madhusudan has preferred this appeal through Jail praying for his acquittal mainly on the ground that the reasoning given by learned Addl. Session Judge while acquitting his co-accused Kanwaljit @ Bittoo and Kuldeep Rai @ Tony should have also resulted in his acquittal.

(2.) We may note here that State did not prefer any appeal challenging the acquittal of co-accused Kanwaljit and Kuldeep Rai. However, co-convict Manoj @ Mannu preferred Crl.A. No.212/1999 against his conviction under Section 302/307/34 IPC and the sentences awarded to him by learned Addl. Sessions Judge. In the said appeal, the Appellant Manoj @ Mannu claimed himself to be juvenile. After getting the necessary inquiry conducted under Juvenile Justice Act, he was declared juvenile. Thereafter, on 24.09.2012 learned counsel for the Appellant Manoj Kumar stated before the Court that the Appellant did not want to question and challenge his conviction, hence matter need not be remanded to Juvenile Justice Board. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the Appellant, this Court, following the earlier decisions of this Court in Crl.A.No.471/1997, Crl.A. No.699/2009 and Crl.M.C. No.1542/2011, upheld the order of conviction of Appellant Manoj Kumar but modified his sentence observing that Manoj was a juvenile on the date of offence. Appellant Manoj was set at liberty on the basis of the period of sentence already undergone by him in judicial custody i.e. seven years, nine months and twenty seven day as on 28.05.1999.

(3.) The Appellant Madhusudan before this Court was convicted under Section 302/307 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC for committing the murder of Sh.Khem Raj and attempt to commit the murder of his wife Smt.Ramesh Kumari (PW-1) on the basis of statement made by injured Smt.Ramesh Kumari (PW-1) who is also an eye witness to the murder of her husband Khem Raj at the hands of her nephew Manoj @ Mannu.