SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seeks to challenge the order/judgment passed by the District and Session Judge in case No.15/91 dated 8.7.1992 whereby the Judge held the appellants guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and also guilty under Section 27 Arms Act. He further on 9.7.1992 sentenced the accused persons for life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC together with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for two years and also sentenced Sanjay under Section 27 of the Arms Act for three years imprisonment and Rs.500/- as fine, in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for two months. Facts of the case as have been noted by the learned District Judge as under.

(2.) The prosecution in this case examined as many as 19 witnesses. PW1 Om Parkash did not support the prosecution's case. However, PW2 Ramesh deposes to the effect that the accused persons were known to him as they resided in the same block of Mangolpuri. He also states that the accused persons were not arrested and were not interrogated in his presence. But he deposed to the effect that the police have lifted the blood stained earth from near the body. He also identified the dead body of Sohan in park. He deposed to the recovery of other blood stained articles of the deceased as also empty bottle and one empty dabba. The same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. This witness also states that Babu Lal present when the articles were seized. This witness was ultimately cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor and confronted with portions of statement under Section 161. Nothing meaningful would revolve around this witness. PW3 is constable Shamsher Singh who took the dead body of the deceased mortury at Subzi Mandi for post martam. This witness was not cross-examined. PW4 is Kumari Babli, the sister of the deceased deposed by narrating the events that took place on the night intervening of 15th/16th June, 1991. She deposed to the effect that she knows both accused persons namely Sanjay and Vishnu. They were residing at Mangolpuri. Her brother and the accused persons were friends. Sanjay and Vishnu were on visiting terms to the house of the deceased. Both the accused persons would profess love to her and would tease her when she went out of the house. This witness reported the matter to her brother and father at which the brother cautioned the accused persons. There was a quarrel on account of this warning two days prior to the occurrence which was then patched up as the accused apologized.

(3.) The witness goes on to state that on 15th June, 1991 at about 10.00 PM, both the accused persons came to the house of the deceased and asked the deceased to accompany them to see a film being shown on the VCR. The deceased accompanied the accused and thereafter did not return. On the following morning the father of this witness went to the house of Sanjay and Vishnu to enquire about the deceased but none of the accused were found present at the residence. In the meantime, the information was received by her father that a dead body is lying in Sanjay Park, Sultanpuri. The father of the deceased went to the spot and on return informed the family that Sohan had been murdered. The witness was put to lengthy cross-examination and withstood her cross-examination firmly. There was nothing meaningful that could be elicited from this witness by the defence. The case put by the defence to this witness was that the accused neither went to the house of the deceased nor did they asked the deceased to accompany them to view the so-called film show.