RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three appeals arising out of the same set of facts. Crl.A.602 of 2003 is by Rajinder Kumar @ Ganja (A-3) and Crl.A.32 of 2004 is by Raj Kumar @ Suman (Accused No.2: "A-2") directed against the judgment dated 25th August 2003 convicting both Appellants under Sections 302, 307 /120B IPC and additionally, A-3 for the offence punishable under Section 452 read with 120B IPC. These two appeals are also directed against the judgment and order on sentence dated 27th August 2003 whereby for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 120B IPC each of them was sentenced to undergo RI for life, fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default to further undergo RI for 10 months; for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 120B IPC to undergo RI for 7 years, fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo RI for 5 months; for the offence punishable under Section 452 read with 120B IPC to undergo RI for 5 years, fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 5 months.

(2.) Crl. A. 920 of 2015 is directed against the judgment dated 23rd May 2015 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, NDPS, Rohini Courts in Sessions Case (SC) No.56 of 2013 arising out of FIR No.722 of 1995 registered at PS Punjabi Bagh and SC No. 19 of 2015 arising out of FIR No.116 of 1996 registered in the same PS convicting the Appellant Jagdish @ Jaggi (Accused No.4: "A4") for the offences under Sections 120B, 302, 307, 452 IPC as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. Crl.A.920 of 2015 is also directed against the order on sentence dated 28th May 2015 whereby for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC A-4 was sentenced to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for six months; for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 120B IPC to Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 7 years, fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for 6 months; for the offence punishable under Section 452 read with 120B IPC to RI for 3 years, fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months; for the offence under Section 120B IPC to undergo RI for 2 years, fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months. Additionally, A-4 was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lacs each to the family members of the deceased Chander Shekhar, Omi Devi and Vimal and in default to undergo SI for 2 years qua each of the three compensation amounts separately. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) It must be mentioned at the outset that as far as Rajinder Kumar (A-3) is concerned, by an order dated 31st January 2005, his sentence was suspended subject to terms. By that time, as noted by the Court, he had already been in custody for more than 9 years. As far as the Appellant Raj Kumar (A-2) is concerned, his sentence was suspended by the order dated 5th May 2005 in which it was noticed that he had already been in custody for nearly 6 years. As far as the Appellant Jaggi (A-4) is concerned by an order dated 19th January 2017 his sentence was suspended subject to terms. By this time, he had already undergone more than 9 years of incarceration.