The court upheld the conviction based on corroborative evidence despite non-compliance with Section 65-B of the Evidence Act regarding electronic records.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sudhir Singh, J.:- This judgment shall dispose of CRA-D-118-2019, CRA-D-1107-DB-2018, CRA-S-2982-SB-2018, CRA-S-3153-SB 2018 and CRA-S-3154-SB-2018 together as all the appeals, have arisen out of a common judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

2. Vide judgment and order dated 12/18.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under Section 412 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Besides this, appellants, namely, Ranjit, Shankar, Bablu and Gautam have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 396 IPC along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 457 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo a simple imprisonment of 6 months.

3. Vide order dated 31.05.2019, the Lower Court records was called for. The has been received.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the present case was registered on the basis of a telephonic message received from PW3 Inder Singh, complainant, who stated that Laxman Singh, Guard of SLV Security, was murdered by some unknown persons and his dead body had been thrown on the staircase of basement of Nurjahan Export, Plot No.608, Phase 5, Udyog Vihar, Gurugram. Thereafter, complainant Inder Singh moved an application Ex.PA to the effect that he was posted as a Training Officer in SLV Security Service. When Attar Singh, Supervisor, SLV Security Service, was checking guards on duty in the aforesaid premises, he found the side gate of the Company, where Laxman Singh, Guard, was on duty, open. When no response came, then he called an employee of said company, who was sleeping on the upper floor. Thereafter, he went inside the Company and found that Laxman Singh was lying dead in the stairs with his tied hands and legs and his mouth was gagged with some cloth. With regard to the said incident, Attar Singh informed the complainant through telephonic communication. On this information, the complainant reached the spot and informed the police. In the meantime, the owner of the Company reached there. CCTV footage showed that five-six persons had entered the company by scaling the wall and committed the murder of Laxman Singh, Guard. Tata-ACE white colour vehicle was seen coming and going out from the Company after being loaded with the looted cloths.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint/application, FIR No.433 dated 04.12.2014, under Sections 457, 396, 120-B and 412 IPC was registered at Police Station Udyog Vihar, Gurugram. During investigation, the police had arrested the accused. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed. Charges under Sections 457, 396, 120-B and 412 of IPC were framed against the accused-appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses namely, PW1 – Geeta Devi wife of the deceased, PW2 –Dr. Deepak Mathur, Medical Officer from General Hospital, Gurugram, PW3 – Inder Singh Mann (complainant), PW4 – L/SI Rani Devi, PW5 – Aman Bahl, PW6 – ASI Murari Lal, PW7 –SI Nityanand, PW8 – ASI Girish Kumar Draftsmen, PW9 – HC Ram Pal, PW10 –SI Ravinder, PW11 – SI Krishan Kumar, PW12 – ASI –Sudhir Kumar, PW13 – SI Surender Singh and PW14 –HC Sandeep Kumar. Further, the prosecution produced documentary evidence in the form of Ex. P1 to P-50. Thereafter, statements of the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to them. However, they denied the same and pleaded false implication.

7. The trial Court conv