Three appeals thereafter were filed before the Delhi High Court which, by its judgment dated 08th March, 2007, dismissed the appeals.
Three persons Mahavir, Jalvir, Mahesh were brought to trial for offences punishable under Sections 394/302/34 IPC for an incident that happened in the residential house of Seema Sharma P.W. 4.,
This appeal was allowed with the positive finding that Seema Sharma P.W. 4 had number been able to identify the accused as she was unaware of his identify and as the police had shown the accused to the witness which justified their refusal to participate in the identification parade and as such the only evidence against Mahavir was the identification by P.W. 4, Seema Sharma in Court and as this identification was a weak kind of evidence Mahavir was entitled to acquittal.
Jalvir, one of the accused thereupon filed Criminal Appeal No.
1475 of 2007 CRL.
The trial companyrt on a companysideration of the evidence companyvicted the three accused and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to a sentence of 10 years for the offence under Section 394 of the IPC, both the sentences to run companycurrently.
Mahavir also filed Criminal Appeal No.
Mahesh, the third accused has subsequently filed the present appeal in this Court claiming parity with the facts in Mahavirs case.
We have taken up this matter for hearing today and have heard the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
A fourth person, Roopa also involved in the incident died during the trial.
A Bench of this Court held that the only witness of the incident was P.W. 4 Seema Sharma who claimed and she knew Jalvir personally and having held as above dismissed the appeal.
A. No.
1175 of 2009 which came up before this Court on 11th April, 2008.
on the 24th February, 1997.
932 of 2007 in this Court.
the first informant at about 415p.m.
