ISHTKAR AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 24.01.2004 and the Order on Sentence dated 29.01.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in the Session's case No. 74/2000, FIR No. 103/2000 of Police Station Moti Nagar. The Trial Court had held Ishtkhar, s/o Mohd. Hussain and Miraj @ Mehraj s/o Mohd. Daud, guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, IPC) and were sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment (hereinafter, RI) for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - under Section 302/34 of the IPC. In default of the payment of fine, the appellants were directed to further undergo RI for a period of one (1) year. The appellants were also sentenced to RI for a period of five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - under Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act. In default whereof the appellants were to undergo a further RI for a period of six months. Appellant Miraj was further sentenced to RI for a period of three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/ - under Section 25 of the Arms Act. In default whereof, the appellant was directed to undergo RI for a further period of six months. All the sentences were to run concurrently and the period already undergone by the appellants during the trial was to be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, CrPC).

(2.) THE brief facts of the case as noticed by the Learned Trial Court are. On 08.03.2000 at about 8:00 PM, opposite Jhuggi No. 482, Rakhi Market under Zakhira Flyover and within the jurisdiction of PS Moti Nagar, the appellants, namely, Ishtkhar; and Miraj @ Mehraj in furtherance of their common intention alongwith their associates namely Mohd. Ladoo @ Nishad; Chottu @ Sadar E Alam; and Irfan (since Proclaimed Offenders) committed murder of Rattan Lal s/o Sh. Ram Lakhan by causing injuries on his person with knives. On the statement of Smt. Munni Devi (mother of the deceased) a case was registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC.

(3.) THE prosecution in support of its case examined 23 witnesses. Three witnesses were examined by the defence. It would be useful to discuss the evidence of some of the material witnesses in detail.