( 1 ) CRIMINAL Appeal Nos. 16 of 2003 and 191 of 2003 seek to challenge judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in Sessions Case no. 29 of 1999, arising out of F. I. R. No. 245 of 1999, Police Station Parliament street, whereby learned judge vide his judgment dated 9. 8. 2002 has held the appellants, namely, Sanjay Thakur and Sabu Lal, guilty for the offence punishable under Section 458 IPC read with Section 302 IPC. Further vide his order dated 20. 8. 2002, he has sentenced the appellants to undergo imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 458 IPC together with fine of rs. 5,000/- to each of the appellants and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for 1 " years. He also sentenced the appellants to imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further Simple imprisonment for one year each.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case as have been noted by learned Additional sessions Judge in his judgment under challenge are as follows :-

". . . . . . . . that on 18. 7. 99, the information regarding dead body of deceased was received vide DD No. 5a in the police station from one Shri Sushil Kumar Pandey, who was working as security guard in the Jeevan Deep Building. He informed the police that he was on security duty from 8. 00 a. m. to 8. 00 p. m. and on 18. 7. 99 when he reached office at 8. 20 a. m. and entered the office, he saw that his colleague Om Prakash Agnihotri, who was on duty that night from 8. 00 p. m. to 8. 00 a. m. , was lying dead and he had come to report the same. On this information, Inspector T. R. Mongia, along with other Inspector Gurmail Singh, tej Bahadur, Constable Anil Kumar, proceeded to the scene of crime. There they found that Om Prakash Agnihotri was lying dead. The telephone was lying broken and the receiver was lying separately. An iron almirah was appeared to have been attempted to forced open with an axe like instrument. Both the hands of deceased Om Parkash Agnihotri were tied with telephone wire and the neck was tied with a red colour plastic rope. They found blood all around with various injuries on the deceased. Police tried to locate some eye-witness, but they failed. Police registered a case under Section 302/460/380 read with Section 511 IPC. During investigation, chance finger prints were also lifted from various objects in the room. The scene was photographed and various other objects fount at the spot were taken into possession and postmortem report shows that death was due to asphyxia and venous congestion as a result of constricting force around the neck due to ligature strangulation. All the injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature and fresh in duration. During investigation of the case, police came to know that deceased Om Prakash Agnihotri was also doing a business of Courier and every night Babu Lal and his brother Sabu Lal, who were also doing the business of Courier, used to come to meet Om Prakash and police learnt that on the night intervening of 17/18. 7. 99 at about 10. 00/10. 30 p. m. , Babu Lal, his brother Sabu Lal and another person Sanjay Thakur, came to the deceased in his office of EID Parry (India) Ltd. On 26. 7. 99, accused Sabu Lal was interrogated and during investigation, he confessed the offence of committing murder of deceased Om Prakash with the help of Babu Lal and Sanjay Thakur. They were arrested. Accused Sabu Lal pointed out the place of occurrence and got recovered the weapon of offence. It was taken into possession. A dagger was also recovered. The other co-accused Sanjay Thakur, was arrested on 1. 8. 99. Their blood samples were also taken. Accused Sabu Lal had admitted involving of four persons in the act but accused Sanjay Thakur named only three persons. One witness, Ravinder Nath Mishra, informed that only Babu Lal, Sabu Lal and Sanjay thakur along had come in the building on the nigh