RAJINDER @ LALU & ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four appellants before us were prosecuted on the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted on 28.08.1996 by the Station House Officer (SHO) of police station Model Town (police station ) on conclusion of investigation into the first information report (FIR) No.255/1996 that had been registered on 06.06.1996. Upon the case being committed by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, they stood trial on the basis of evidence submitted with the said police report, on the charge for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the gravamen of which was that on 05.06.1996, at about 10:30 p.m., on a public road near Ambedkar Park, Lal Bagh within the jurisdiction of said police station, in furtherance of their common intention, they had committed the murder of Baiju son of Bhola (PW -4), aged about 23 years. On the consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, essentially through the mouthpiece of twenty one witnesses, that would include Noor Mohammad (PW -7) and Vijender (PW - 11), both presented as witnesses to the occurrence, the court of sessions, by judgment dated 29.07.2000, held all the four appellants guilty, as charged, and by order dated 31.07.2000 awarded sentence of imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.25,000/ - each, in default further simple imprisonment for two years' each, also directing that the amount of fine, if realized, would be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased person.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved with the judgment returning finding of guilty, and the order on sentence, these appeals have been filed assailing the view of the trial Court, contending primarily that the prosecution evidence, in general, and that of the aforementioned two eye witnesses, in particular, was not worthy of reliance and, further, that the appellants have been falsely implicated.

(3.) Before coming in grips with the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants, it would be proper to have a brief overview of the facts and evidence leading to the impugned judgment. But, even before we come to the contentious parts, certain area which is indisputable may be taken note of.