C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The appellants, before us, were convicted, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma (hereinafter referred to as “the learned ASJ”), vide judgment dated 16th July 2016, for offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 396 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), and were consequently sentenced, vide order dated 27thJuly 2016. The particulars of their convictions and sentence may be set out thus:

(i) Neeraj was convicted under Sections 302 read with Section 34, Section 307 read with Section 34, Section 396 and Section 397 of the IPC. He was sentenced, (a) to rigorous imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with default sentence of one year RI, under Section (“u/s”) 307 r/w 34 IPC and (b) to rigorous imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with default sentence of one year RI, u/s 396 r/w 397 IPC.

(ii) Sonu was convicted u/S 302 r/w 34, 307 r/w 34 and 396 IPC. He was sentenced, (a) to rigorous imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with default sentence of one year RI, under Section (“u/s”) 302 r/w 34 IPC and (b) to rigorous imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with default sentence of one year RI, u/s 396 IPC.

(iii) Vikas’s conviction and sentence were identical to Sonu’s. He, too, was convicted u/s 302 r/w 34, 307 r/w 34 and 396 IPC, and was sentenced (a) to rigorous imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with default sentence of one year RI, u/s 307 r/w 34 IPC and (b) to rigorous imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with default sentence of one year RI, u/S 396 IPC.

The learned ASJ further observed that, in view of the fact that the appellants were being sentenced u/s 396 IPC, there was no need to pass a separate sentence on them u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC.

2. The appellants have moved this court, by way of appeals, against the judgment, dated 16th July 2016, and sentence order dated 27th July 2016, of the learned ASJ.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The case of the prosecution, as set out in the charge sheet, dated 9th June 2009, read with the documents exhibited in the case, may be set out as under.

4. On 16th March 2009, Duty Officer HC Hoshiyar Singh (PW-3) had informed, vide DD No 24A (Ex. PW-3/A), that a telephone call had been received, with the caller stating: “Gazipur Shamshan Ghat par mere bhai ko chaku maar diya”. The information was given to SI Harpal Singh (PW-12) for necessary action. Following thereupon, Inspector Mahender Kumar (PW-31) reached the “Shamshan Ghat” with HC Rajesh Kumar (PW-29), Ct. Yogender (PW-13) and Ct. Javed (PW-20), where they were informed that two persons, who had suffered knife wounds, had been taken to the hospital in the PCR van, and that the condition of one of the two was critical, for which the other had called the PCR, from the mobile phone of the store keeper, near the cremation ground. Thereupon, the said team reached LBS Hospital, where they were informed, of the situation, by SI Harpal Singh (PW-12), who also handed over, to them, MLC No 1647/09 (Ex. PW-1/A), of the deceased Jitender and MLC No. 1648/09 (Ex. PW-1/B) of the injured Mool Chand (PW-4), along with samples, sealed with the seal of the hospital.

5. The MLC of Jitender (Ex. PW-1/A), prepared by Dr. Shalini Gupta (PW-1) at 3 PM on 16th March 2009, stated that the patient had been brought dead, and that he had suffered an “incised wound right side chest upper part 3 x 1 cm”. The MLC of Mool Chand (PW-4) (Ex. PW-1/B) stated that he was “conscious, oriented”, his general condition was “fair”, and that he had a “lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. plus swelling in left thigh middle 1/3rd”. The nature of his injury was noted as “simple blunt”.

6. The charge sheet further stated that the deceased Jitender had a knife wound at the centre of his chest, and blood was also found on the trouser worn by him. The investigating team, accompanied by Mool Chand (PW-4), thereafter, visited the spot where the incident had taken place.