R.K. Gauba JUDGMENT
R.K. Gauba, J.
1. The three appellants viz. Bhajan Singh @ Gulla (Accused No. 1), Joginder Singh @ Jagga (Accused No. 2) and Ashok @ Bobby (Accused No. 3) stand convicted by judgment dated 19.08.2013 of the Additional Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 201 read with Section 120B IPC on the charge of having entered into criminal conspiracy and, pursuant to it, having committed the murder of child Wasim (son of PW- 16 Mohd. Yunis), aged 8 years, and destroying the evidence thereafter on or about 11.7.2004 and 12.7.2004 in House No.B-7/144, Sector-17, Rohini.
2. By order dated 21.8.2013, the convicts were sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of ` 5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and imprisonment for seven years with fine of ` 5,000/- for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 120B IPC. The trial court directed that in case of default in the payment of fine, the three convicted appellants could further undergo simple imprisonment for six months on each count. It also directed each convicted persons to pay compensation of ` 30,000/- to the parents of the deceased child (hereinafter referred to variously as "the victim" or "the deceased").
3. The three convicts have preferred criminal appeals No. 194/2014, 244/2014 and 1648/2013 respectively) assailing the judgment and order on sentence as above.
4. The appellants were also charged by the trial court for offences punishable under Sections 364 and 364A read with Section 120B IPC on the allegations that in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy they had kidnapped the victim child at about 3.30 pm on 11.7.2004 from in front of house nos. B-209 and 203, Sector-17, Rohini, in order to commit murder and having kept him in detention after such kidnapping extending threats of causing harm to him so as to compel his father (PW-16 Mohd. Yunis) to pay ransom. By the impugned judgment dated 19.8.2013, the trial judge held that the prosecution had not been able to prove the requisite facts constituting the said offences and, thus, acquitted the three afore- mentioned appellants of the said charge.
5. The State, feeling aggrieved, has come up in Crl. A.261/2015, questioning the correctness of the order of acquittal, praying for reversal of the judgment of the trial court to that extent.
6. It may be mentioned here that PW-16 (Mohd. Yunis), father of the victim child, had also preferred Crl. A. No. 1355/2013 assailing the acquittal on the aforementioned charges. The said appeal was disposed of by order dated 26.2.2015 with liberty given to the said appellant to address arguments at the time of hearing on the appeals at hand.
7. Certain basic facts borne out from the record are beyond dispute and may be noted at the outset.
8. PW-16 Mohd. Yunis was a resident of B-2/42, Sector-17, ........