- (1.) The present appeals are directed against the concurrent judgments of conviction and award of capital punishment. The Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, convicted the four accused (the appellants herein), for offences under Sections 499, 376(2)(g) and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC ) and sentenced them vide judgment and order of sentence dated 20 th November, 2007 as follows: Offences Punishment/Sentence 302/34 IPC Award of capital sentence and ordered that they be hanged till death. 376(2)(g) IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/- each. In case of default in the payment of fine, each accused to further undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment of one month each. 449 IPC Ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and in default to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.
(2.) The Division Bench of the High Court vide its judgment dated 24 th July, 2009 confirmed the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge giving rise to the present appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, inter alia, but primarily, has raised the following challenges to the judgments under appeal: (1) That the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. (2) That the sole witness, PW6, Dhaniram is not a credible witness and, in fact, he himself falls within the realm of suspicion as being an accused. Number of other witnesses including, PW2, Sunita, PW5, Bela Bai, and PW10, Kamlesh, turned hostile in the court. This clearly is indicative of false implication of the accused. (3) That there are variations and serious contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, which have been relied upon by the courts, while convicting the accused. (4) Furthermore, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. Therefore, the conviction of the accused is unsustainable. The contention is that the linking evidence is missing in the present case. The incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution does not connect the appellants with the commission of crime. (5) The High Court has erred in law in relying upon the statement of the witnesses which are not reliable. The courts are expected to examine statements of such witnesses and/or sole witness cautiously. The learned Trial Court as well as the High Court has failed to apply these settled principles correctly to the facts of the present case. (6) FSL report does not clearly state or link the appellants with the commission of the crime. For these reasons and grounds, the appellant claims acquittal.;