RAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to the production warrants, the appellant is present in the Court.

(2.) THE matter was passed over on the first call as counsel for the appellant, who is engaged to appear for the appellant by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, was requested to interact with the appellant and obtain instructions from him. On the second call, learned counsel states that she has obtained instructions from the appellant to the effect that while he does not wish to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction dated 31.3.2010, he requests that having already undergone a period of sentence for 2 years 3 months, he be released by reducing the sentence to the period undergone by him.

(3.) THE disclosure statement of the accused persons was recorded and after the investigation was completed, a challan was filed before. the court. Charges were framed against all the three accused who pleaded that they were not guilty and claimed trial. In the trial, 7 witnesses including the complainant, were examined, whereafter the trial court arrived at the conclusion that the accused were apprehended from the spot itself, and they could not explain their presence there and further, the witnesses who were from the family of the complainant were reliable and there was no reason to discard their testimony.