MANMOHAN SARIN, J.

( 1 ) LUST for two z s i. e. Zar (wealth) and Zameen (Land) by the appellants led to the commission of this ghastly crime. The genesis lay in the second marriage of one of the appellant s father. Thus the third proverbial z i. e. Zun (Woman) too played its own part.

( 2 ) THIS judgment would decide Crl. A. 805/2004 preferred by Appellant-Atbir as also Murder Reference No. 3/2004 moved by the State. Atbir challenges his conviction under Section 302 IPC by judgment dated 10th September, 2004 and order of sentence of death dated 27th September, 2004 Appellant-Ashok has preferred Crl. A. 876/2004, against his conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him.

( 3 ) APPELLANT-ATBIR son of Jaswant Singh, Ashok Kumar @ Ashok son of Nanhu singh, Arvind son of Rajbir and Chandra, first wife of Jaswant Singh, all were charged for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Smt. Sheela Devi current wife of Jaswant Singh, Sonu @ Savita daughter of jaswant Singh and Manish S/o Jaswant Singh from Smt. Sheela Devi. Chandra could not be arrested and brought to trial. She was declared a proclaimed offender.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge found Atbir and Ashok guilty of offences under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced Atbir to death, while Ashok was sentenced to life imprisonment. Arvind was given benefit of doubt and acquitted.

( 5 ) THE facts, as unveiled during the trial, may be briefly noted:- jaswant Singh had married accused Chandra @ Chandrawati and from the said wedlock three issues were born, Satbir, Atbir and Anju. Jaswant Singh deserted chandra @ Chandrawati in 1993. He thereafter married Sheela Devi, the deceased. From the marriage with Sheela, daughter Sonu @ Savita and deceased son Manish @ mannu were born. Prosecution s case is that Satbir, the elder son from Chandra and accused Atbir were demanding from Jaswant Singh share in his property i. e. , transfer of agricultural land in Bulandsahar, measuring 25-26 bighas in their favour. They were also demanding that they be given share in the house at mukherjee Nagar, where Jaswant Singh was residing with his present wife Sheela and children or in the alternative to buy for them a house in Mathura. Jaswant singh is stated to have executed a Will in respect of agricultural land in bulandsahar, admeasuring 25-26 bighas in their favour but Atbir and Satibir were insisting on a transfer through a registered document, which Jaswant Singh promised to do in future provided Chandra and Atbir did not visit and trouble the family at N-33, Mukherjee Nagar.

( 6 ) THE prosecution case is that on the afternoon of 22nd January, 1996, chandra along with her son Atbir, Ashok and one Arvind entered the house at mukherjee Nagar and demanded money from Sheela, who refused. Accused persons bolted the doors from inside. Thereafter, Atbir stabbed Manish @ Mannu, who was held by Chandra, Ashok and Arvind. Thereafter Sheela Devi was held by them and atbir stabbed her and inflicted injuries on her. Thereafter Sonu @ Savita was held by them and Atbir stabbed her. Sheela and Manish were found dead while Sonu @ Savita was removed to Hindu Rao Hospital in a PCR Gypsy, where she made a dying declaration. She succumbed to injuries on 24th January, 1996.

( 7 ) THE prosecution case is essentially based on the dying declaration made by Sonu @ Savita, who named Atbir as the person who had stabbed her deceased brother, mother and herself after being held by Chandra, Ashok and the third person Arvind, whom she did not name. As noted earlier, Arvind had been given benefit of doubt. Chandra could not be arrested to face trial. She was declared a proclaimed offender. The prosecution case is supported by statement of one Suresh Chauhan, as having last seen the accused person proceeding towards the house of the deceased persons in the afternoon of 22nd January, 1996. This is further supported by an oral statement purported to be mad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document