SUSHIL AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants Satender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi, by the impugned judgment dated 25.03.2014 have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC"), for having committed murder of Ram Babu @ Ramu between 11:20-11:40 PM on 07.09.2008 near Flat No.D-1/85, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. Satender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi have also been convicted under Section 397 IPC. Appellant Ram Singh @ Aarami, by the same impugned judgment has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, observing that there was no overt act of stabbing attributable to him (for detailed reasoning reference can be made to paragraph no .46 of the impugned judgment). However the appellant Ram Singh stands convicted under Section 394 IPC for participating in the robbery with Satender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi resulting in theft of the mobile phone, which was being used by the deceased Ram Babu @ Ramu.

(2.) By order on sentence dated 28.03.2014, the appellants Satender @ Satte and Sushil @ Jalebi have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment of 1 year for the offence under section 302 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under section 397 IPC. Appellant Ram Singh @ Aarami has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years, fine of Rs. 7,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment of 1 year for the offence under section 394 IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for appellant Ram Singh @ Aarami has submitted that there is inherent contradiction in the judgment which acquits Ram Singh @ Aarami for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, but convicts him under Section 394 IPC. Learned counsel for appellant Ram Singh @ Aarami and other appellants have drawn our attention to paragraph no. 41 of the impugned judgment, which reads:-