RAM CHANDER @ GANJU Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North District, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 67/2006, arising out of FIR No. 421/2005, registered at Police Station Ashok Vihar, registered under Sections 394/397/302/34 IPC. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the present appellants, namely, Ram Chander @ Ganju, Vijay Kumar @ Mandiya and Sunil @ Nalia have, been convicted under Sections 394/302 IPC. The appellants are also aggrieved by the order on sentence dated 04.02.2010 whereby the appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/ - each was imposed in respect of the offence under Section 394 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the convicts were also required to undergo a further period of simple imprisonment of one month each. With regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, all the appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life as also to a fine in the sum of Rs 1000/ - each and in default of payment whereof they were to undergo simple imprisonment of one month each. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) WE may point out, at the outset, that there were four accused in the present case, the fourth being one Sanju, who has been declared to be a proclaimed offender. According to the prosecution, the deceased Pawan Kumar, who was on friendly terms with the appellants, was called by them and Sanju in the night of 24.06.2005, between 9 -10 pm, on the pretext of taking a stroll in the park. According to the prosecution, Pawan left with the appellants from his residence and this fact was seen or witnessed by his brothers, namely, PW -2 Parvesh Kumar and PW -3 Satish Kumar. Thus, according to the prosecution, the deceased Pawan was last seen alive in the company of the appellants between 9 -10 pm on 24.06.2005. - The dead body of Pawan was discovered next morning, that is, on 25.06.2005 at about 6.30 am by one Sarju (PW -5) who is the chowkidar of the park. On discovering the dead body of Pawan Kumar, which was lying in the nursery, Sarju informed Mordhwaj (PW -1), who was the supervisor of the nursery. Thereafter, the said supervisor informed J.J. Colony Police Post through his mobile phone and the information was recorded as DD No. 35 (Ex.PW12/A). Thereupon, SI Mohar Singh (PW -15) and other police officials reached the spot where the dead body was lying. The crime team was also summoned to the spot and photographs were taken. In the meanwhile, the deceased Pawan's brothers, namely, PW -2 Parvesh Kumar and PW -3 Satish Kumar, also arrived at the spot and identified the body as that of their brother Pawan Kumar. SI Mohar Singh noted that there were injuries on the head of the deceased and also found some broken pieces of earthen pots lying near the body. Thereafter, inquest proceedings were conducted, ruqqa was sent and the FIR (Ex.PW8/A) was registered. All other formalities with regard to the investigation were completed and, ultimately, the appellants were charged of having committed the offence mentioned above.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in the brief facts recorded in the in guest proceedings (Ex. PW15/C) also, there is no mention of any last seen evidence. It was further stated in the 'brief facts' that there was no eye -witness and that no witness of the incident was available. During the inquest proceedings, both Parvesh Kumar and Satish Kumar were present and, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, a clear inference can be made that the evidence of 'last seen' was also not available at that point of time. The inquest papers were received at the mortuary on 25.06.2005 at about 12.30 pm. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the entire story of the last seen evidence is an afterthought.