The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses, medical and forensic evidence, and the CDRs of the mobile phones of the appellants. The court also held that the minor contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses did not go to the root of the case and could not demolish the prosecution's version. Further, the court held that the CDRs of the mobile phones of the appellants corroborated with the other evidence appearing on record and proved the involvement of the appellants in the criminal conspiracy.

JUDGMENT :

Brijesh Sethi, J.

Vide this judgment, we shall dispose of all the appeals bearing nos. CRL.A. 1317/2015, CRL.A. 351/2015, CRL.A. 762/2015 & CRL.A. 497/2015 as these arise out of the same judgment of Learned Trial Court in FIR No.20/2011, registered under Sections 302/120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and under Section 25/54/59 Arm Act.

2. The present appeals have been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') assailing the judgment dated 28.01.2015 and order on sentence dated 19.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 02, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No.27/2011, arising out of FIR No.20/2011, registered under Sections 302/120-B/34 IPC and under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act at Police Station Neb Sarai, whereby all the appellants have been held guilty under Section 302/120-B IPC.

3. Vide the order on sentence dated 19.02.2015, all the appellants have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. Convicts Aarti and Rishi Kumar Bhati were further sentenced to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as fine, in default of which they were directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months whereas appellants Praveen @ Kalu and Sumit were also sentenced to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as fine, in default, they were directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

4. Before the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties can be considered, we deem it appropriate to outline the case of the prosecution as discussed by learned Trial Court and it reads as under:-

"Statement of Dalbir Singh led to the registration of the FIR under section 302 IPC. The crux of the complaint lodged was that on 03.02.2011 at about 10.30 pm while members of the extended family of Dalbir Singh were coming back home after attending a marriage function in the vicinity of their residence at Raju Park, Devli, Khanpur, Delhi, nephew of Dalbir namely Narender @ Naveen, son of Dayal Singh was shot dead by some unknown persons. Assailants had shot Naveen on his head from nearly a point blank range. The victim Naveen was taken to the hospital by the complainant Dalbir Singh in his Maruti van, but the victim Naveen could not be saved, where he was declared brought dead.

The investigations in the matter brought in the role of Aarti, wife of the deceased Naveen into the incident which led to the apprehension and arrest of other co-accused persons namely Rishi, Praveen @ Kalu and Sumit. The investigating agency pieced together the information, evidence and came to the conclusion that the murder was the result of a criminal conspiracy hatched primarily by Rishi and Aarti, who in turn, engaged other two i.e. Sumit and Praveen to carry out the execution of the conspiracy by shooting Naveen dead against a consideration/promise of Rs.3 Lacs. Chargesheet, containing the details of the investigation carried out by police was filed in respect of the accused persons Sumit, Rishi and Praveen under section 302/34 IPC and under section 25 of the Arms Act and qua accused Aarti Rawat under Section 120B IPC. After committal of the case to the court of sessions, accused persons were charged under section 120B and 302 IPC on the basis of evidence gathered by the investigating agency. All four accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the charges framed against them respectively.

Before proceeding further a brief narration of the indispensable facts emerged during the investigation and trial, is required. The victim Naveen and accused Aarti were married but their married life was not smooth. It seems that Aarti was not able to reconcile with the relationship and was suspected to be involved into extra marital affair(s). Her conduct was objected by her husband and as a result of the same, she had to leave her job in a Call Centre and thereafter from the Khajani Institute, too wh