SUMIT KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal the Appellant challenges the judgment dated 29 th November, 2010 convicting the Appellant for offence under Sections 307/34 IPC and order on sentence dated 1 st December, 2010 directing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the conviction is based solely on the evidence of the Complainant which is not corroborated from any other evidence on record. The weapon of offence has not been recovered at the instance of the Appellant. Further the bullets fired and the used cartridge cases have also not been recovered. No opinion was taken by the Investigating Officer from the expert whether any firing was done from the weapon so recovered from the co-accused. The MLC does not mention the history of firing though given by the Complainant himself and only mentions history of assault. There are material contradictions in the statement of the Complainant. As per PW2/complainant the site plan was prepared after his statement was recorded however, this fact is incorrect as the site plan mentions the FIR number. The site plan only shows two spots and thus is a vague site plan. Even as per the Complainant, the Appellant was arrested on the same date however, the police witnesses have stated that they arrested the Appellant on the next date. The arrest of the Appellant has been manipulated. When the Appellant came to know that he has been framed in the alleged incident, he voluntarily went to the police station along with his father and brother and he was made to sit in the police station at the night itself. Thus the arrest of the Appellant on the next day is fabricated. Admittedly the alleged dispute between the Complainant and the Appellant was for the fact that the Appellant had taken Rs. 1 lakh from the Complainant out of which Rs. 65,000/- had been paid. The Appellant would not kill someone for a paltry sum of Rs. 35,000/-. There is no evidence on record that the alleged katta recovered at the instance of the co-accused was the same from which the Appellant fired. Thus in view of the material contradictions and there being no evidence to corroborate the testimony of PW2/the Complainant, the Appellant be acquitted of the charges framed.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that as per DD 33 Ex.PW6/A an information with regard to a person being shoot was recorded at 7.40 p.m. The rukka Ex. PW2/A was sent at 8.30 p.m. Thus there can be no manipulation in the FIR. The contention of the Appellant that he was made to sign the blank papers and false documents were prepared cannot be believed. Admittedly the Appellant and the Complainant were known to each other and thus there could be no false implication. In view of the cogent and convincing testimony of PW2, the appeal be dismissed.