MADHU Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the basis of reports under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), submitted on conclusion of investigation into FIR No. 347/2002 of police station Gokalpuri, under sections 302/120B of Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sunil Kumar Raghav (respondent No. 2), Shehzad (respondent No. 3) and Vinod (respondent No. 4) were put on trial in sessions case No. 94/2012 in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, the gravamen of the charge being that they having entered into a criminal conspiracy, in pursuance of the object thereof, had committed murder of Akhilesh Kumar Raghav (hereinafter referred to variously as "the victim" or "the deceased") at about 10.30 PM on 13.09.2002 near water tank, Gali No. 3, Rama Garden, Karawal Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of the police station Gokalpuri (hereinafter referred to as "the police station").

(2.) THE trial concluded with the judgment dated 21.12.2013 holding that the prosecution evidence did not inspire confidence and, thus, acquitting the said three respondents giving them benefit of doubt. Madhu, wife of the victim/deceased feeling aggrieved, has come up in the criminal appeal assailing the view taken by the learned trial Judge, contending that sufficient evidence had been adduced bringing home the guilt of the three persons who had been accused and prosecuted. The State entered appearance through Additional Public Prosecutor on 26.05.2014. Notices were issued by order dated 26.05.2014 to the three said respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the accused persons") calling upon them to show cause as to why the appeal be not admitted.

(3.) IT will be of advantage to note the background facts in the chronology of events that came to light. But before we do so, it is pertinent to note the close relationship of the persons involved, excluding accused No. 2 Shehzad.