THAN SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common judgment will dispose of the present set of appeals, which arise out of charge sheet filed in FIR No. 759/1997, Police Station Vikas Puri under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short). The impugned judgment dated 9th December, 1999 convicts the four appellants for the charge of murder of Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Rekha in the intervening night of 10th/11th December, 1997 at House No. K-1C/161, Mohan Garden, Delhi. By the impugned order of sentence dated 10th December, 1999, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. In default of payment of fine, they have to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. On the aspect that the two deceased had suffered a homicidal death as a result of strangulation, we accept and believe the testimony of Dr. K.L. Sharma (PW-4), who had conducted post-mortem on the dead bodies of Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Rekha. The post-mortem reports of the deceased have been marked as Ex. PW-4/A (Rekha) and Ex. PW-4/B (Shiv Pratap @ Raju). As per the post-mortem reports, the cause of death of both persons was asphyxia caused due to repeated ligature strangulations causing mechanical obstruction of airways. The ligature material was something hard and flexible like a belt. The aforesaid ligature strangulations were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death rapidly.'

(2.) The core issue and question raised is whether the appellants were the perpetrators, of the said offence. The prosecution in the charge sheet had primarily relied on eye witness Savitri, who had deposed as PW-2. But, she has not supported the prosecution case and had stated that she was married, had children and used to reside at Sarojini Nagar. She was on friendly terms with the deceased Raju and he had been frequenting their house for about 1 1/2 years prior to the incident. She asserted that nothing as the regards the alleged offence happened in her presence and she did not remember anything. She was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor. During the course of her cross-examination, she resolutely stood by and remained committed to her earlier deposition.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid factual position, the prosecution sought to build its case upon circumstantial evidence. In this regard, the prosecution primarily relies upon statements of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12), father and brother, respectively, of the deceased-Shiv Pratap @ Raju. Learned counsels for the appellants have submitted before us the testimonies of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) are on two aspects. Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) had last seen the appellants with the deceased in the evening before the intervening night of the occurrence and that in the morning of 11th December, 1997, after they had seen the dead bodies of Shiv Pratap @ Raju and Rekha, they had heard the appellants accept their involvement in the offence. The appellants have contested the testimonies of Raghav Ram Singh (PW-5) and Satpal (PW-12) as being make-belief, tainted on the ground that they are propped up witnesses. It is submitted that their statements cannot be and should not be relied upon as the basis for convicting the appellants.