RIYAZ KHAN @ GAINDA Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Believing the testimony of Suresh Kumar PW-1 and accepting that the knife Ex.P-2 was got recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement made by appellant Riyaz Khan, which knife when sent for the opinion of Dr.Vijay Dhankar PW-22 was opined as capable of inflicting the three injuries on deceased Sunil and additionally capable of causing the cut marks on a vest and a shirt worn by the deceased when he was assaulted, the learned trial Judge has opined vide impugned judgment dated December 14, 2010 that the prosecution has successfully established that Riyaz Khan along with juvenile co-accused Mohd. Mukkaddar (who was sent for trial to the Juvenile Justice Board) had committed the offence of having murdered Sunil and had attempted to murder Suresh Kumar and additionally had voluntarily caused hurt while committing robbery and while doing so had used deadly weapons. Riyaz Khan has thus been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/307/394/397/34 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated December 22, 2010, Riyaz Khan has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine in sum of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine in sum of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 394/397 IPC. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Challenging the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the testimony of Suresh Kumar PW-1 regarding his identifying Riyaz Khan as one of the two co-assailants during trial; conceding to the fact that the prosecution has successfully established that on September 25, 2008 at around 00:30 hours i.e. just after midnight, Suresh Kumar and his friend Sunil were fatally assaulted at the platform No.2 of Badli Railway Station by two persons. To put it pithily, learned counsel for the appellant states that the prosecution has proved the incident but has not been able to prove Riyaz Khan's involvement in the incident. As regards the offence of robbery for which Riyaz Khan has been convicted, learned counsel urges that no stolen property being recovered, the learned trial Judge has erred in convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Section 394/397 IPC.

(3.) Thus, while capturing the evidence led at the trial, we shall be noting the relevant evidence pertaining to the incident very briefly to the extent it is necessary for the textual setting but would be laying emphasis on such evidence as would relate to the identification of Riyaz Khan as one of the two assailants, the other being juvenile co-accused Mukkaddar whose name has surfaced in the evidence, while describing the participating role of Riyaz Khan and whose trial was conducted before the Juvenile Justice Board.