New Delhi, Mar 13 A Delhi court Friday sentenced four men to life imprisonment for the 2017 murder of a 17-year-old boy in west Delhi's Kirti Nagar area, holding that in pursuance of their common intention, they all played an active role in causing the death.
The court also imposed a fine of Rs 20,000 each on Ramu, Sonu, Munna Paswan and Rahul.
Additional Sessions Judge Pooja Talwar held them guilty under Sections 302 (murder) and 34 (common intention) of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC) for killing Manoj in February 2017.
"It stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention inflicted stab injuries on the person of deceased Manoj which is proved through unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony of Sonu.
"The said ocular testimony is further corroborated by the medical evidence wherein the cause of death of deceased Manoj has been proved to be caused due to incised wounds inflicted with the knife," the court had said while convicting them on March 7.
The court sentenced them on Friday. Considering the poor financial condition of the convicts, the court directed District Legal Services Authority, West to deposit the fine for adequate compensation to the family members of the victim.
On the night of February 5, 2017, Manoj had stepped out to buy vegetables near Lakkad Mandi at Kirti Nagar Chowk.
The convicted allegedly attacked him with knives and a plastic pipe after surrounding him on the road.
Manoj was taken to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital by his brother but was declared brought dead by doctors.
According to the prosecution, Sonu had misbehaved with a girl in the same neighbourhood as Manoj, which led to Manoj warning him.
Sonu was furious due to this and allegedly planned this attack as revenge. On the morning of the murder, Sonu's brother Ramu had allegedly come to Manoj’s residence and slapped him.
On the night of the murder, Manoj's brother was alarmed by a neighbour about the assault and when he got to the scene of crime, he saw Rahul holding Manoj by his neck, Munna beating him with a pipe while Sonu and Ramu stabbed him. When he raised an alarm, all the accused fled the scene.
The court relied on eyewitness testimony, primarily that of the victim's brother Sonu.
The court rejected the argument that the victim's brother's testimony could not be relied upon as he is an interested witness. It quoted a 1965 Supreme Court judgment where it was stated that mechanical rejection of any evidence given by an 'interested witness' on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice.
"Testimony of Sonu could not be impeached despite extensive cross-examination. There is no discrepancy, improvement or embellishment in his deposition before court... His statement was recorded in hospital on the day of incident itself. No suggestion was given to him that the accused persons were not present at the spot," it said, holding his testimony stands "unrebutted and uncontroverted".
The court also raised apprehension of witnesses being won over by the accused or intimidated in the case of two hostile eyewitnesses who initially supported the prosecution case in all particulars, but when they stepped into the witness box after a gap of two years, they contradicted their own statements.
However, the court found the victim's brother's statement to be sufficient for conviction, as it said, "It is a settled proposition of law that it is the quality of the testimony and not the quantity which decides the fate of the case. In case the testimony of single witness is of such sterling nature which points towards the guilt of the accused, then the same is sufficient to convict the accused."
The court also rejected the argument by the defence that the Investigating Officer (IO) conducted a faulty investigation and did not even seize any CCTV footage.
The court remarked, "Even if the lapses on the part of IO during investigation are taken into account even then the ocular testimony of witnesses coupled with medical evidence clearly establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt."
Remarking on the medical evidence corroborating the prosecution's case, the court said, "Death of Manoj was caused intentionally which is evident from the injuries sustained by him as mentioned in the postmortem report. Intention to cause death is writ large as a dangerous weapon was used in causing injury which in ordinary course was sufficient to cause death of Manoj."
The defence had argued that the alleged recovery of the weapon was doubtful as it was from a place open to public access and not within the exclusive knowledge of the accused.
However, in light of other evidence that corroborates the prosecution's case, the court found the doubtful recovery was not enough to dismiss their case.
