RAJBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the outset, it must be pointed out (as indicated in the memo of parties) that appellant no. 1 Rajbir Singh, during the pendency of the appeal, has expired and consequently the instant appeal has been prosecuted only on behalf of appellant no. 2 i.e., Samundar Singh. In this judgment, I shall make reference to the original appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 2 by their respective names, i.e., Rajbir Singh & Samundar Singh and collectively as appellants.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 31.07.1999. By the impugned judgment the appellants stood convicted under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC "). In addition, Samundar Singh has also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959(hereinafter referred to as the "Arms Act "). Consequently, the appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (3) years with a fine of Rs 1000/. In default of payment of fine the appellants will be required to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment of two (2) months, in respect of conviction for offence committed under Sections 307/34 of the IPC. In so far as Samundar Singh 's conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act is concerned he is sentenced to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a minimum period of three (3) years with a fine of Rs 500/-. In default of payment of fine, Samundar Singh will be required to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (1) month.

(3.) THE prosecution, in order to prove its case, cited 12 witnesses. While the defence cited two witnesses. In addition, the statement of Rajbir Singh and Samundar Singh was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C. ").