JAI BHAGWAN Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been instituted by the appellant Jai Bhagwan son of Sh.Hukum Singh assailing the impugned judgment dated 13.11.2000 and impugned order on sentence dated 15.11.2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 102/96 in relation to FIR No. 616/95, P.S. Ambedkar Nagar. Vide the impugned judgment dated 13.11.2000, the accused/the appellant herein was convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and vide the impugned order on sentence dated 15.11.2000, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of the payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The record reveals that the appellant has been in custody for six years eleven months and twenty five days and has earned remission of a period of 10 months and 12 days and is presently on bail since 24.12.2003.

(2.) The notice of the appeal was issued to the State. The trial court record has been requisitioned, received and perused. Arguments were addressed on behalf of the appellant by Mr.Sumeet Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and on behalf of the State by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Aashaa Tiwari. The trial court record indicates that the charge of allegations was framed against the accused/the appellant herein on 24.07.1996 to the effect that on the date 19.09.1995 at about 8:00 p.m. at Gali No. 4, opposite House No. 286, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi the accused/the appellant herein committed the murder of Desh Raj by inflicting knife injuries with an intention to commit murder and that the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, 1860. The accused/the appellant herein pleaded not guilty to charge of allegations and claimed trial. The trial court record indicates that in support of the prosecution version, the State examined 14 prosecution witnesses.

(3.) The accused/the appellant herein through the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, 1973 denied the incriminating evidence led against him and stated to the effect that the witnesses were interested witnesses and had deposed falsely due to enimical terms with him because of a quarrel between his wife and the mother of the two prosecution witnesses i.e. Sushil Kumar and Ashok, who had falsely implicated him in the case with the connivance of the police.