By way of the impugned judgement dated 07.09.2011 and order on sentence dated 13.09.2011, Mohd. Imran (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant No.1'); Mukesh alias Karka (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant No.2'); and Akram (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant No.3'), were convicted and sentenced as follows:I) Appellant No.1CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 2 of 30ii) Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 302/34 IPC.In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.1 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.ii) Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 302/34 IPC.CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 3 of 30 In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.2 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 3 of 30The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.III) Appellant No.3The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Furthermore, the benefit of Section 428 CrPC has been granted to the Appellant No.3 as well.CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 4 of 30CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 4 of 30The fulcrum of the case of the prosecution is that on 18.04.2010, the Appellant nos.1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter collectively referred to as 'Appellants'), sharing common intention, caused stab injuries on the body of Dhiraj s/o Mr. Ram Nandan (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') leading to his death.The injuries were caused with a knife [Ex.P9], whilst committing robbery, at Sanjay Jheel, Mayur Vihar Phase-II, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Sanjay Jheel/crime spot').After committing the murder, the appellants took the mobile phone, Rs.60/-70/-, and the school ATM card of the deceased and absconded from the crime spot.The entire incident was witnessed by Ms. Sapna (PW-6), who was present with the deceased at the time of the incident.A PCR call [Ex.PW13/A] was made at the instance of PW-6 by Mr. Satish (PW-3); who was playing cricket at some distance from the crime spot, and Daily Diary No.13A was lodged at Police Station Pandav Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Police Station').Sub-Inspector Krishan Pal, PCR, North East zone (PW-15) alongwith Constable Murad Khan reached at the crime spot where they found the dead body of the deceased smeared in blood.Inspector B.R. Meena (PW-23/Investigating officer/IO) also reached at the crime spot, where PW-6 was also present.CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 5 of 30CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 5 of 30Crime team was called at the crime spot.PW-23 recorded the statement of PW-6 [Ex.PW6/A]; prepared the rukka [Ex.PW23/A] and gave it to Constable Bahadur Singh (PW-18) for registration of F.I.R. [F.I.R. being Ex.PW19/A]; and thereafter prepared the site plan [Ex.PW23/B].The dead body of the deceased was sent to LBS Mortuary through PW-15 and Constable Murad Khan.PW-23 took two samples each of blood soaked earth and earth controls from the crime spot [vide separate memos Ex.PW-6/B to E].A P-Cap lying near the body of the deceased was also taken into possession [vide memo Ex.PW-6/F].Thereafter, PW-23 alongwith woman Constable Krishna took PW-6 to her house and took into possession the blood stained clothes worn by her at the time of the incident [vide memo Ex.PW6/G].On 19.04.2010, PW-23 conducted inquest proceedings and the dead body of the deceased was identified by Mr. Neeraj Kumar and Mr. Ram Nandan Prasad [vide Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW1/A, respectively].Further, PW- 23 requested the doctor for postmortem vide application Ex.PW23/D. Postmortem was conducted and the dead body of the deceased was handed over to his relatives [vide Ex.PW1/B].The clothes as well as the blood CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 6 of 30 sample of the deceased were taken into possession [vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/E].CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 6 of 30It is further the case of the prosecution that the mobile device of the deceased; being amongst the articles robbed by the Appellants, was placed under surveillance and it was discovered that another mobile number being 9958103551, activated in the name of one Gulshan Bano R/o Jhuggi Jawahar Mohalla, Shashi Garden, Delhi (mother of the appellant no.1) was being used on the said mobile device.On enquiry from the mother of Appellant No.1, the former pointed towards the latter stating that he was using the said mobile number.Consequent thereto, the Appellant No.1 was apprehended and made a disclosure statement [Ex.PW17/A] admitting his involvement in the incident.Appellant No.1 was arrested [vide arrest memo Ex.PW17/D] and his personal search was conducted [vide memo Ex.PW17/E].Appellant No.1 got recovered from the fridge in his jhuggi, the mobile device of the deceased in which he was using the said mobile number.The mobile device and the SIM of the said mobile number being used therein, were taken into possession CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 7 of 30 [vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/B].Furthermore, the Apellant No.1 also got recovered from his jhuggi a bloodstained T-shirt, which he was wearing at the time of the commission of the offence [vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/C].CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 7 of 30Appellant No.2 was apprehended and during interrogation he also made a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the incident [Ex.PW21/C].Appellant No.2 was arrested [vide arrest memo Ex.PW21/A] and his personal search was conducted [vide memo Ex.PW21/B].Appellant No.2 got recovered from his jhuggi the knife [Ex.P9] used in the commission of the offence [vide memo Ex.PW21/E].Furthermore, the Appellant No.2 also got recovered a white coloured blood stained T-shirt, which he was wearing at the time of the commisison of the offence [Ex.PW21/F].Subsequent thereto, at the instance of Appellant Nos.1 and 2, Appellant No.3 was arrested.Pursuant to his arrest, Appellant No.3 also made a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the incident [Ex.PW18/PX2].Appellant No.3 was arrested [vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/A] and his personal search was conducted [vide memo Ex.PW18/PX1].Appellant No.3 got recovered a shirt having bloodstains CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 8 of 30 from his jhuggi, which he was wearing at the time of the commission of the offence [vide memo Ex.PW18/PX4].CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 8 of 30However, the Appellants refused to participate in the TIP proceedings [Ex.PW9/E to G].Broadly, PW-6 (the eyewitness) has deposed to the incident as follows:That on 18.04.2010, at about 10 A.M., while she was on her way to her friend's house she met the deceased.The deceased was her cousin brother.They both got engaged into a conversation and whilst simulataneously conversing and walking reached Sanjay Jheel.They both sat down there on a bench when the Appellants approached the deceased and asked him for the time.Thereafter, the Appellants asked the deceased to stand up and both of them stood up.On their standing up, the Appellants asked the deceased to hand over everything in his possession, however, PW- 6 and the deceased told the Appellants that they do not have anything and CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 22 of 30 asked for them to be left alone.Appellant No.2 took out a knife and asked for the deceased to hand over everything in his possession or otherwise he will be killed.On the other hand, Appellant No.3 threatened PW-6 to leave from there or otherwise she too will be killed.PW-6 started walking away from the crime spot and after walking a few steps again requested to the Appellants to leave them alone.The deceased also requested the Appellants to leave them.CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 22 of 30The Appellant Nos.1 and 3 caught hold of the deceased and the Appellant No.2 stabbed the deceased on his chest.On being stabbed, the deceased started crying and after taking a few steps fell down on the ground.Thereafter, the Appellants took away the money and mobile phone of the deceased and absconded from the crime spot.PW-6 went up to the deceased while he was bleeding from his chest and asked him to get up.However, the deceased couldn't speak and was breathing heavily.PW-6 approached some boys, which included PW-3, and asked them for their help.At her request, PW-3 made the call to the police to report the incident, pursuant to which the police arrived and took the dead body of the deceased to the hospital.One of the contention which was raised by the Appellants before the Trial Court in order to discredit the testimony of the sole eye-witness, PW-6 CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 23 of 30 was that she has only deposed of one stab wound viz. Injury No.1, whereas the postmortem records two stab wounds on the body of the deceased.The Trial Court whilst rejecting this contention and holding the testimony of PW- 6 to be consistent, credible and truthful, observed as follows:CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 23 of 30i) Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 2 of 30 392/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.1 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 1 month.Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under the provision of Section 397 IPC.In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.2 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 1 month.i) Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 392/34 IPC.In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.3 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 1 month.ii) Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 302/34 IPC.In default of payment of fine, the Appellant No.3 has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months.On 04.05.2010, PW-23 recorded supplementary statement of PW-6 qua the identity of the Appellants, and on 05.05.2010 statement of PW-6 was recorded under the provisions of Section 164 of CrPC [Ex.PW6/H].The Exhibits were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as 'the FSL').In the FSL examination [Ex.PX2] it was discovered that human blood was present on the clothes recovered at the instance of the Appellants as well as on the knife, however, the blood group could not be detected.Insofar as the post-mortem report is concerned [Ex.PW5/A], it has been stated therein that the following injuries were present on the body of the deceased:i) Incised stab wound 3.3 x 1.9 cms obliquely present over left side at chest 112 cms above heel and 8 cms from midline, chest cavity deep, margins sharp and regular, lower end acute, CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 9 of 30 directed downwards, inwards and medially (hereinafter referred to as 'Injury No.1');CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 9 of 30ii) Incised wound .5 x .1 cms oblique, present over dorsum of left hand, skin deep, margin sharp and regular (hereinafter referred to as 'Injury No.2');iii) Abrasion 0.5 x .03 cms present 1 cm above medial end of right eyebrow on forehead (hereinafter referred to as 'Injury No.3').It has been opined by Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh (PW-5) that the cause of death was haemorragic shock consequent upon stab injury to the chest; all injuries were antemortem in nature.Injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and Injury Nos.1 and 2 were caused by a single edge and sharp weapon/knife.Furthermore, on internal examination the following injuries were discovered:"In continuation of Injury No.1, skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle, in between 6th and 7th ribs, upper body at 7th rib, pleurae left side, pericardium and left ventricular of heart above apex, 2.8 x 1.5 cms were incised, about 2.5 litres of blood in cavity, all layers of muscle at left vertical were incised, cavity deep, chambers empty."As per the sketch drawn by PW-5 of the knife, the length and width of the blade thereof is 20.3 cms and 3.7 cms (at most), respectively.It has also been deposed by PW-5 that Injury Nos.1 and 2 have been caused from the same weapon of offence.CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 10 of 30Furthermore, PW-5 has also tendered subsequent opinion with respect to Injury No.3 [Ex.PW5/B].It has been stated therein that the Injury No.3 could have been caused due to surface friction against a rough surface.At the trial, the prosecution has examined 23 witnesses in support of its case.The Appellant No.1 in his defence has chosen not to lead any evidence.However, it has been stated by him in his statement under the provision of Section 313 CrPC that he found the mobile phone from the bushes of the park at Sanjay Jheel; where he was playing football.The Appellant No.2 in his defence has produced Mr. Nasir Ahmed (DW-1), his employer, CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 11 of 30 who asserted that at the time of the incident Appellant No.2 was present with him in Rewari, Haryana.CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 11 of 30The Appellant No.3 in his statement, under the provision of Section 313 CrPC, whilst disputing the recovery made at his instance, has also stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.The Appellant No.3 in his defence has produced Md. Yasin (DW-2), his employer.It has been deposed by DW-2 that Appellant No.3 was working with him at the time of the incident.i) The testimony of PW-6, the sole eyewitness, being consistent, credible and truthful;ii) PW-6 has identified the Appellants in Court.Furthermore, PW-iii) The recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased from the Appellant No.1;CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 12 of 30"25. ...It is stated that as per PW6, only one stab wound was caused but as per P/M report Ex.PW5/A, deceased sufferred two stab wounds.PW6 has talked about only one stab injury inflicted by accused Mukesh on the chest of deceased.As per P/M report Ex.PW5/A, there is another stab injury present over dorsum of left hand and doctor opined that both injury No.1 and 2 are caused by single edged sharp weapon/knife.PW6 has stated that he pleaded with accused persons to leave them as they are not having any thing.On this, accused Akram threatened her to go away from there otherwise she will be killed.She started leaving from the spot, after taking few steps she again requested accused persons to leave them.As per PW6, she saw accused Imran and Mukesh caught hold deceased Dhiraj and accusecd Mukesh stabbed Dhiraj on his chest.Injury on the dorsum of left hand of the deceased shows that while being assaulted with knife as natural reaction to defend, deceased must have brought his hand in-between, as result of which he sustained this injury.Since PW6 was leaving from the spot and from some distance she saw accused stabbing deceased, it looks probable that she did not see accused inflicting injury No.2 i.e. on left hand of the deceased.She was cross-examined by both the Ld.The Trial Court rightly concluded that the possible reason for PW-6 not having testified to the injury on the dorsem of the left hand (Injury No.2) could be that it was caused when she started walking away from the crime spot.As rightly observed by the Trial Court, Injury No.2 could have been caused as a consequence of the deceased exercising his right of defending himself by a natural reflex action against assault by Appellant No.2 with a knife.Even otherwise, it seems only logical to conclude that Appellant No.2 was not aiming for the dorsum of his left hand.CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 25 of 30CRL.A.1315/2014, 829/2012 & 452/2013 Page 25 of 30However, insofar as the fatal injury is concerned i.e. Injury No.1, the same was caused by the Appellant No.2 using the knife [Ex.P9] recovered at his instance, whilst Appellant Nos.1 and 3 had caught hold of the deceased.The Injury No.1 was on a vital part of the body viz. left side of the chest, with a force so great that it resulted into an incise wound as large as 3.3 x 1.9 cms, and as a consequence thereof, several grave and internal injuries also resulted.The Injury No.1 so caused cannot be said to be accidental, unlike Injury No.2, as with two persons holding the deceased and a stab wound already present on the dorsum of his left hand (Injury No.2), there was not much scope of movement for a young boy of an average physique.

Cited provisions: Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code