New Delhi, March 13 – A Delhi court on Friday sentenced four men to life imprisonment for the 2017 murder of a 17-year-old boy in Kirti Nagar area of west Delhi, stating that they all played an active role in causing the death, motivated by a common intention.
The court also fined Ramu, Sonu, Munna Paswan, and Rahul a total of Rs 20,000 each.
Additional Sessions Judge Pooja Talwar found them guilty under Sections 302 (murder) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for killing Manoj in February 2017.
"It is beyond any reasonable doubt that all the accused, acting on their common intention, inflicted stab injuries on the deceased, Manoj, which is proven by the testimony of Sonu, which cannot be refuted," the court stated.
"Further corroborating the eyewitness testimony is the medical evidence, which proves that Manoj's death was caused by stab wounds inflicted with a knife," the court said on March 7.
The court delivered the sentences on Friday. Considering the convicts' poor financial situation, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority, West, to deposit the fine to compensate the victim's family.
On the night of February 5, 2017, Manoj had gone out to buy vegetables near Lakkad Mandi in Kirti Nagar Chowk.
The accused 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 doctors declared him dead.
According to the prosecution, Sonu had misbehaved with a girl in the same neighborhood as Manoj, which prompted Manoj to warn him.
Sonu was angered by this and allegedly planned the attack as revenge. On the morning of the murder, Sonu's brother, Ramu, allegedly went to Manoj's residence and slapped him.
On the night of the murder, Manoj's brother was alerted by a neighbor about the assault, and when he arrived at the scene, he found Rahul holding Manoj by his neck, while Munna was beating him with a pipe and Sonu and Ramu were stabbing 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 cited a 1965 Supreme Court judgment stating that rejecting any evidence given by an "interested witness" solely on the ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to a failure of justice.
"Sonu's testimony could not be refuted despite extensive cross-examination. There is no discrepancy, alteration, or embellishment in his statement before the court... His statement was recorded in the hospital on the day of the incident itself. No suggestion was made to him that the accused were not present at the scene," the court stated, holding his testimony as "unrebutted and uncontroverted".
The court also raised concerns about the potential intimidation of witnesses, particularly in the case of two hostile eyewitnesses who initially supported the prosecution's case, but contradicted their statements after a two-year gap.
However, the court found the victim's brother's statement sufficient for conviction, stating, "It is a settled principle that the quality of the testimony, rather than the quantity, determines the outcome of a case. If the testimony of a single witness is of such a sterling nature that it points towards the guilt of the accused, then it is sufficient to convict them."
The court also rejected the defense's argument that the investigating officer (IO) conducted a faulty investigation and did not seize any CCTV footage.
The court stated, "Even if the lapses of the IO during the investigation are taken into account, the eyewitness testimony and the medical evidence clearly establish the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt."
Commenting on the medical evidence that supports the prosecution's case, the court said, "Manoj's death was intentional, as evident from the injuries sustained by him, as mentioned in the post-mortem report. The intention to cause death is clear, as a dangerous weapon was used to inflict the injury, which would have been sufficient to cause Manoj's death."
The defense had argued that the alleged recovery of the weapon was doubtful, as it was found in a public place and not within the exclusive knowledge of the accused.
However, in light of other evidence that supports the prosecution's case, the court found that the doubtful recovery was not enough to dismiss their case.