STATE Vs. TERA NAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the learned ASJ dated 10.03.2011 passed in Sessions Case No.99/2009; that judgment acquitted the respondents of the charges of having committed offences under Section-302/394/397/34 IPC.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the prosecutions case was that on 21.08.2009, an intimation - recorded as DD No.30-A (Ex.PW9/A) was received at Police Station Kashmere Gate from the PCR that someone had been stabbed under GPO Flyover. The information was given by Constable Mohan, from a PCR. The investigation was marked to SI Pratap Singh (PW-9) who reached the spot and was told that the injured had been taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital by some police constable who later who later turned out to be PW-16. PW-9 went to the hospital where he obtained the copy of the MLC (Ex.PW3/A) which stated that the injured (who had by then died and was later identified as Nitin Mohan Sharma) was declared brought dead. The MLC also stated that the deceased had been taken to the hospital by PW-16. The formal FIR was subsequently lodged at 09:55 PM and investigation was conducted. During the course of the investigation, the statements of PW-5, PW-16 and PW-21 were recorded. The police alleged that on the basis of the secret information received by them, the accused were arrested on 06.09.2009. They were charged with having committed the offences mentioned above. They entered the plea of not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions. WE also had the benefit of going through the Trial Courts records which were requisitioned for this purpose. The Trial Court disbelieved the testimony of PW-16 on several counts. The most prominent amongst these were the circumstance that Ex.PW-3/A which was the most contemporaneous document did not mention about any attack; instead it recorded as follows: - Alleged H/o the boy lying in injured state from Chatta Rail about 15-20 minutes back as told by the police. The Trial Court also disbelieved PW-21, and went on to conclude that PW-16 could not be relied upon as his statement did not appear to have been recorded in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.