BIRENDER PAL SINGH @ VARINDER PAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed by the Appellant praying inter alia for suspension of sentence passed against the Appellant in a case arising out of FIR No. 249/2003 lodged by the brother of the Appellant, Shri Surender Jit Singh under Section 307 IPC, registered with Police Station: Paschim Vihar, Delhi. Under the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2010 passed by the learned ASJ, it was held that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the Appellant beyond doubt. As a result, he was held guilty and convicted under Section 307 IPC. This was followed by the order on sentence dated 24.07.2010 where under, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years coupled with a fine of 2,000/-, in default of payment of which, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) Notice was issued on the present application on 30.07.2010. A status report was filed by the learned APP for the State, opposing the relief sought by the Appellant herein. It is stated that on enquiry conducted, it has been found that the mother of the Appellant is a widow, aged 80 years and has six sons including the Appellant herein and two daughters, all of whom are married. It is stated that the mother can be well looked after by her remaining sons and daughters in the absence of the Appellant. As far as the nominal roll of the Appellant is concerned, a perusal thereof shows that as on 29.09.2010, he had undergone sentence for a period of two months and 12 days. As on date, the said period of conviction undergone is 5 months and 22 days.

(3.) Counsel for the Appellant states that there are apparent inconsistencies in the evidence placed on the record, which the learned ASJ had failed to consider while deciding the impugned judgment. He states that in the FIR, it was mentioned that the injuries suffered by the complainant were caused by a knife but the police had shown recovery of a screw driver having blood on its tip from the possession of the accused. He states that this fact goes in favor of the Appellant to show that he has been wrongly convicted by the learned ASJ.