SANJIV Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Criminal Appeals bearing Nos. 400/2000 titled "Sanjiv v. State" and 713/2002 titled "Sanjay v. State", have been preferred against the judgment and order on sentence dated 9.4.2002, convicting both the appellants under Sections 302/34, IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for three months each.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that on 20.2.1999 at 12.27 p.m. Ct. Prabha gave information from PCR to the Wireless Operator, regarding a dead body lying in a factory in house No. 125, near village Kirari, Delhi, which information was conveyed to the Police Station on intercom and was recorded as DD No. 46-13. Copy of the DD was entrusted to SI C.L. Meena, who along with Ct. Umesh left for the spot. The factory comprised three rooms and a Veranda. In the eastern corner room dead body of a young male was lying. On enquiry the dead body was found to be of Roshan Lal, an employee of the factory, who used to sleep in the factory. His head and neck were having injuries. Beneath the head there was a blood stained towel. The wall was also having blood stains. In a corner of the room there was an open suitcase. Clothes lying in it were ruffled and disturbed. Additional SHO Insp. Sushil Kumar also reached the place. SI prepared the "rukka" and got a case registered under Section 302, IPC through Ct. Umesh.

(3.) The SI called the senior officers, the crime team and the photographer and handed over the investigation to the Addl. SHO. During the course of investigation the Addl. SHO inspected the spot, prepared the site plan, took into possession the incriminating articles, got the dead body photographed, completed the inquest proceedings and after the post-mortem was conducted the dead body was handed over to the relations of the deceased. During the course of further investigation on 26.2.1999 appellant Sanjiv was arrested and on 24.3.1999 appellant Sanjay was arrested. Their disclosure statements were recorded (Ex. PW-9/B, Ex. PW-18/D respectively). Jacket of the deceased was found with the appellant Sanjiv. Wrist watch of the deceased was got recovered by appellant Sanjay. Both the appellants had disclosed that the hammer (one of the weapons of offence) was concealed by them under a heap of bricks. The hammer was got recovered. The post-mortem report as also the opinion regarding the use of the weapon of offence (hammer) were obtained, exhibits of the case were got sent to CFSL, TIP regarding the jacket and the wrist watch was got conducted and after completing the investigation in all respects, the case was sent up for trial. The Court framed charge under Sections 302/34, IPC against the appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses.