12 of 1988 and companyvicting the appellants under Sections 147/149/449/436/302/395/396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment and fine under different sections of IPC.
But then another mob came which, according to PW 11, companysisted of 200 250 persons this number has been given as 1000 1200 by PW 2.
3 Virender on 1st November, 1984 whereas in her first statement recorded on 21st April, 1986 she had stated that on 1st November, 1984 accused appellant No.
The trial companyrt on companysideration of testimony of the witnesses held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused appellants.
During the pendency of this appeal, appellant No.
According to PW 6, he saw all the accused persons putting the above mentioned two houses on fire, beating and killing the deceased and also putting the dead bodies of the deceased into gunny bags along with many other persons who were also present.
At about 9.00 a.m., a mob of more than 500 persons, including the appellants, came and attacked the house of Dr. Harbir Sharma where the companyplainant was hiding with her husband and father in law.
On companypletion of the investigation, challan was filed against the accused appellants and they were charged of having companymitted offences under various sections of IPC.
The prosecution had ample opportunities to companylect evidence from the place of alleged occurrence like ashes, blood stains etc.
Sushil Kumar, on first seeing Dr. Sharmas house being put on fire, had rushed to call Dr. Sharma who had gone to call the police.
As per companyplainants testimony, the mob was armed with sabbals, ballams, sariyas and lathis.
PW1/A lodged on 7th November, 1984, she stated that a mob including appellant No.
The companyplainants husband and father in law were burnt alive and their half burnt bodies were put in gunny bags.
They saw the appellants using dandas to put the bodies of the deceased in gunny bags.
Each of the accused denied the incriminating circumstances put to them and stated that they have been falsely implicated because Dr. Harbir Sharma had enmity with them.
Further, the High Court erred in law by number appreciating the discrepancies companytradictions in the testimonies of Sushil Kumar PW 4 , Jagdish PW 6 and Mohar Pal PW 7 , which were rightly appreciated by the trial companyrt while passing the order of acquittal.
As per the companyplainant, her husband and father in law had taken shelter in one of the room on the ground floor and locked themselves, while the family of Dr. Harbir Sharma and she herself had gone upstairs to the roof.
4 Ram Lal is stated to have died on 23rd May, 2011.
2 Surender P. Singh and Charan, who lived in her neighbourhood, had attacked her house and looted household articles on 1st November, 1984 at about 9/9.30 a.m. Fearing threats of companymunal violence, the companyplainant Harjit Kaur and her family had taken shelter at the residence of Dr. Harbir Sharma PW 5 who had his house opposite to that of the companyplainant and had remained there with her husband Rajinder Singh and father in law Sardool Singh for 2 3 days.
Learned companynsel submitted that there was numberrecovery of the dead bodies of deceased, namely, Rajinder Singh and Sardool Singh.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that Harjit Kaur PW 1 , a resident of House No.
Thirdly, the trial companyrt numbericed certain companytradictions in the statements of eye witnesses, namely, Sushil Kumar PW 4 , Dr. Harbir Sharma PW 5 , Jagdish PW 6 and Mohar Pal PW 7 .
2 Surender and appellant No.
4 Ram Lal were amongst the persons who had looted her house.
As per the deposition of the companyplainant, after the mishap, with the help of one boy she went to Hari Nagar at her fathers house and also to police station Janakpuri and after the help of Gorkha Regiment was provided she returned to Sagarpur on 3rd November, 1984 but she companyld number get the dead bodies of her husband and father in law and her entire house was burnt and the house of Dr. Sharma was also entirely burnt along with household articles.
According to PW 4 the mob companysisted of 100 persons.
On 7th November, 1984, she made a companyplaint in Police Station Delhi Cantt.
The trial companyrt further numbered that in her companyplaint Ex.
PW 4 is companybrother Sadhu of PW 5.
On 3rd November, 1984, the appellants came to the house of Dr. Harbir Sharma in the morning and protested for having given shelter to the companyplainants family and threatened that if the companyplainant and her family to whom shelter had been given were number handed over to them, they would burn the house.
3 Virender and appellant No.
Secondly, the trial companyrt held that the companyplainant had made prevaricating statements regarding presence of two accused persons i.e. appellant No.2 Surender and appellant No.
Against the judgment of the trial companyrt, the State preferred an appeal before the High Court.
The FIR was registered on 9th November, 1984.
The companyplainants house was also burnt.
to prove the alleged killing and burning of two persons alive.
It is the prosecutions case that Sushil Kumar PW 4 brother in law of Dr. Harbir Sharma , Dr. Harbir Sharma PW 5 , Jagdish PW 6 and Mohar Pal PW 7 also saw the house being set on fire and the deceased Rajinder Singh and Sardool Singh were being attacked with sabbals, burnt and their mortal bodies put into gunny bags.
PW 5/1 by PW 5 and the names of two accused Ram Lal and Virender also did number find mention therein.
4 Ram Lal and appellant No.
3 Virender Singh in her companyplaint Ex.
As per the version of PW 1, Harjit Kaur, she went to call the police military assistance on 3rd November, 1984 and she was present in Police Station Janakpuri, but it is an admitted fact that FIR was number lodged by her on 3rd November, 1984 itself.
In that case, the accused were prosecuted for companymitting murder and throwing the dead body into drains or setting it ablaze.
Besides, the prosecution did number produce any vital scientific piece of evidence on record before the trial companyrt that any person was burnt alive on 3rd November, 1984 in the premises bearing No.
He has stated that his statement was recorded within 4 5 days of the occurrence whereas in fact as per the statement of I.O. PW 9 and as per record his statement was recorded on 30th November, 1984 i.e. after unexplained delay of about 27 days.
PW 8 did number give the number.
1 Lal Bahadur alias Lal Babu along with appellant No.
At the time the mob was assembling, the companyplainant was present on the roof of one of the neighbours of Dr. Harbir Sharma whose house was in the same row.
The inmates felt inclined to accept this advice and they were in the process of cutting their hair.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses.
In her typed companyplaint Ex.
Not only this, to believe PW 4, her son Wazir Singh was burnt to death and thrown into the adjoining nullah.
They thereupon broke the windowpane and entered the house and set the house on fire.
RZ 3/295, Gitanjali Park, Sagarpur, New Delhi.
The appellants were having one cane of oil and iron sabbal and were leading the mob.
1 Lal Bahadur, appellant No.
Therefore, the appeal stands abated so far as he is companycerned.
The trial companyrt numbered that certain facts were number mentioned in the companyplaint Ex.
3 Virender on 1st November, 1984 without any companyroboration as also regarding putting of the half burnt dead bodies in the gunny bags on 3rd November, 1984, inasmuch as she had number named accusedappellant No.
However, some persons gathered there saved Dr. Sharma and his family members and he lodged the report on 5th November, 1984.
PW1/A , the companyplainant had mentioned that the half burnt bodies of her husband and father in law were put in gunny bags by the accused Lal Babu, Surender and Charan on 3rd November, 1984, whereas in her statement before the companyrt she stated that she did number actually see the accused putting burnt dead bodies of deceased into gunny bags and she only heard saying the accused persons put half burnt dead bodies in the gunny bags.
The trial companyrt also numbericed delay of 27 days in recording statements of PW 4, PW 6 and PW 7.
RZ 1/295, Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi, apprehensive of harm to her family because of riots which followed the assassination of late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 31st October, 1984, had sent both her daughters and a son to her father Govind Singhs house at BE 7, Hari Nagar, New Delhi.
She stated that the appellants hit the door of the house with iron sabbals but the door companyld number be broken open.
Thereupon, Dr. Harbir Sharma went out to get help from the Military.
PW1/A , though they were identified in the companyrt by her and even in her statement recorded second time she had stated that she had number seen accused appellant No.
Both of them rushed back to find the house being burnt by the appellants and Sardoor Singh as well as Rajinder Singh were killed.
He has admitted in his cross examination that he had worked as a companypounder.
6 of 1992 reversing the order of acquittal dated 31st October, 1990 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No.
However, numbere of the accused led any evidence in defence.
Y. Eqbal, J. The present appeal has been filed under Section 379 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970 against the judgment and order dated 27th August, 2008 passed by the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
