BALVEER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 7525 of 2007 preferred by the appellants was connected with Capital Jail Appeal No. 6362 of 2007, which the appellants have preferred from jail and with Reference No. 23 of 2007 sent by the Sessions Judge under Section 366 of the Code of CRIMINAL Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for confirmation of the sentence of death awarded to the appellants under Section 302/34, I.P.C. together with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each. In default of payment of fine, the appellants were sentenced to two years additional imprisonment by the order of the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, J. P. Nagar dated 31.8.2007. The appellants were also sentenced to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each under Section 201, I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, the appellants were sentenced to three months additional sentence ; three years' R. I. under Section 377/511, I.P.C. together with a fine of Rs. 1,500 each and in default of payment of fine, an additional sentence of 4 months ; a sentence of one year's R.I. under Section 379, I.P.C. and to a sentence of one year's R.I. also un Shankerlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 765 der Section 411, I.P.C. The appellant Balveer Singh was also convicted to imprisonment for life under Section 3 (2) (v), S.C./S.T. Act and a fine of Rs. 10,000 in default of payment of fine two years additional sentence. The appellant-Mukesh was, however acquitted under the aforesaid charge as he himself was a member of the Scheduled Caste.

(2.) A report was lodged on 24.10.2001 at 8.45 p.m. by Hem Raj, P.W. 1, father of the deceased at P. S. Amroha Dehat at Crime No. 490 of 2001 under Section 302, I.P.C. against unknown persons. The allegations in the F.I.R. were that his son Vipin Kumar aged about 14 years had left his home with a darati on a bicycle at about 1.30 p.m. on the same day for cutting the maize crop. When the boy did not return till 7 p.m. then the informant became worried. He was then informed by his cousin brother Jaikar that the dead body of a boy is lying in the field of Shamsuddin, which was neighbouring his field. Then the informant accompanied by the Gram Pradhan and others went to the spot, where they found the dead body of his son lying in the field of Shamsuddin with a wire tied around his neck and an injury on his head. His stomach was also lacerated. Some unknown persons appeared to have committed the crime.

(3.) THIS is a case of circumstantial evidence in which 11 witnesses were examined from the side of prosecution. Three witnesses A.P.W. 1 Smt. Phoolvati, A.P.W. 2 Data Ram Sharma, A.P.W. 3 Inderwati and two Court witnesses C.W. 1 Dr. Ashok Kumar and C.W. 2 Dr. Ranjan Gautam were examined for proving the ages of the appellants Balveer and Mukesh in order to show that they were juveniles on the date of incident, so that they could get the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act. The case of the appellants in their statements under Section 313, Cr. P.C. was of denial and they claimed to have been falsely implicated.