PHOOL SINGH Vs. STATE GNCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in this case are aggrieved by a judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 16-8-2010 and 31-8-2010 in SC No.786/2007 by which they were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 362/302/34/377 read with Section 511, IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, and also undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. The appellants were in addition, directed to pay fine.

(2.) The prosecution alleged that on 03-01-2007, the dead body of a 5-6 year old boy was found in a naked condition hanging from a window grill near the boundary wall on the rear side of the Pump House of the BJRM Hospital Mortuary Complex, Jahangir Puri. Blood was found on the mouth of the child and on the penis along with a swelling of the testicles; the tongue was hanging outside the mouth. A cloth was found around the neck with two knots on it and blood was found on the ground under the penis. The boy's clothes were also found nearby. No eye witnesses were however, found at the spot. The body was identified by PW-2 Kishan Kumar as being that of his son Hunny, alias Kali who had been missing since the previous evening. One tea vendor, PW-3 Harish informed the police that he had seen the boy with the Appellants (Tek Chand and Phool Singh, referred to hereafter by their names) at about 8:00 PM the previous day and they were entering the hospital complex. The prosecution alleged that on 06-01-2007 the police received information about the Appellants' presence at the Jahangir Puri bus station, which led to their apprehension, interrogation and eventual arrest. The prosecution alleged that the Appellants made their disclosure statements admitting their involvement in the crime. Charges against the accused were framed under sections 362/302/377/34 of the IPC; they entered the plea of not guilty, and claimed trial.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution relied on the testimonies of 23 witnesses, besides several exhibits. After considering them and hearing submissions on behalf of the parties, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had established the Appellants' guilt, and convicted them as it did, by the impugned judgement, and handed down the sentences indicated in the earlier part of this judgment. The Appellants are aggrieved by the said conviction and sentences.