SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Del) 694

High Court Of Delhi
STATE - Appellant
Versus
AJAY KUMAR SINGH - Respondent
MURDER REF. 1 of 1996
Decided On : 08/22/1997

Advocates Appeared:
B.L.Kalra, B.R.Handa, D.C.MATHUR, MOHD.NASIR, N.K.Handa, R.K.MAHESHWARI, Rajesh Sachdeva, S.C.JAIN, Satish Seth, V.K.Jain

Arun Kumar

( 1 ) THIS murder reference and the connected appeals arise from the judgment dated 28th May, 1996 passed by a learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi. In all five accused had been tried for offences under Sections 302/307/120-B, IPC. Accused Ajay Kumar Singh was also charged for an offence under Sections 27/54 of the Arms Act, 1959. Accused Rajender Kumar died during the course of the trial. All the remaining four accused were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and fines and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment etc. Accused Ajay Kumar Singh was also awarded death sentence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. for committing the murder of Mukesh Kumar. For the offences under Sections 120-B and 307/34, Indian Penal Code. he was awarded sentences for life imprisonment besides fines. He was also awarded the sentence of imprisonment for seven years and fine for conviction under the Arms Act. Accused Sudhir Jain was sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code besides fine. Accused Narinder and Mahinder were convicted under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code etc. and were awarded life imprisonment besides fines.

( 2 ) MURDER Reference No. 1/96 is the reference made to this Court by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge under Section 366, Cr. P. C. for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to accused Ajay Kumar Singh. Ajay Kumar Singh has also appealed against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and his appeal is Cri. A. 105/96. The other three appeals, i. e. , Cri. A. 102/96, 107/96 and 108/96 are the appeals filed by accused Sudhir Kumar Jain, Mahinder Kumar and Narinder Kumar respectively against the said judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

( 3 ) THE entire case revolves around an incident which took place on 6th October, 1982 at 7. 45 p. m. inside the Palika Bazar - an underground air-conditioned market located at Connaught Place, New Delhi. The complainant party consists of three brothers, namely, Ashok Kumar, Naval Kumar and Mukesh Kumar. In the incident Mukesh died as a result of two bullet injuries received by him. Ashok also received two bullet injuries. He was lucky to have survived. Two shots were allegedly fired at the third brother also but he escaped them. Besides the bullet injuries the two surviving brothers also received some other injuries. Ajay Kumar Singh who had allegedly fired the shots was apprehended alongwith a revolver in his hand while ^ he was fleeing from the scene of crime. He was arrested then and there and the ) revolver was seized from him. The other accused succeeded in their escape from the scene of occurrence. However, they were arrested later. SI Gurdeep Singh accompanied by Naval had gone in search of the other accused who had fled from the scene of occurrence. They went to their residence at Joshi Road where they were not found. Accused Narinder and Mahinder were arrested on 8th October, 1982 while accused Rajender was arrested on 12th October, 1982. Sudhir Jain was arrested on 19th December, 1982.

( 4 ) INITIALLY the investigation was carried out by SI Gurdeep Singh, PW-35. However, the complainant party was not satisfied in the manner in which the investigation was being conducted and they approached the Commissioner of Police on 8th October, 1982 and also filed an application before him in this connection which is Ex. PW-I/p. On 9th October, 1982 as per orders of Commissioner of Police the investigation of the case was transferred to the Crime Branch. Inspector Kulpal Rai Mehta took over the investigation on 9th October, 1982.

( 5 ) NAVAL Kumar, PW-I, one of the brothers belonging to the complainant party made a statement before the 10, SI Gurdeep Singh, which formed the basis of the FIR. The statement was recorded soon after the incident by the Investigating Officer. The incident took place at about 7. 45 p. m. The endorsement of the Investigating Officer while despatching the statement from the place of occ































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top