(1.) Kamal Jaiswal (A-1), Arun Punia (A-2), Shekar Verma (A-3) and Sushil Kumar @ Shalu (A-4) impugn a judgment dated 24.03.2003 and sentence order dated 27.03.2003 in Sessions Case No.102/2002 arising out of FIR No.142/2000 registered at Police Station Bhajan Pura by which they were convicted under Sections 307/427/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years with fine Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 307/34 IPC and RI for six months with fine Rs. 5,000/- each under Section 427/34 IPC.
(2.) Allegations against the appellants were that on 28.05.2000 at about 10.30 P.M. at Milan Restaurant, C-6, DDA Market, Yamuna Vihar they inflicted injuries to Kapil Arora with swords and knives in an attempt to murder him. They also caused loss to the victim's property by smashing the furniture and other articles in the restaurant. The police machinery was set into motion when information was conveyed at 11.05 P.M. that an individual has been stabbed with a sword and Daily Diary (DD) No.66 B (Ex.PW10/A) was recorded. The investigation was assigned to SI Rajesh Dangwal who with Ct.Jagat went to the spot. The First Information Report was lodged after recording victim-Kapil Arora's statement (Ex.PW-6/A) on 29.05.2000 at 12.45 A.M. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellants were arrested. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against them in the court. They were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses to establish its case. In their 313 statements, the appellants pleaded false implication but did not adduce evidence in defence. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court held all the appellants perpetrators of the crime for the offences mentioned previously and sentenced them. It is relevant to note that during pendency of the appeal, Sushil Kumar (A-4) expired and the proceedings were dropped as abated by an order dated 24.05.2013.
(3.) Pw-6 (Kapil Arora) is the victim/injured. The First Information Report was lodged on his statement (Ex.PW-6/A) recorded on 29.05.2000 in the hospital without inordinate delay. Kapil Arora gave graphic detail as to how the accused persons came at about 10.30 P.M. on 28.05.2000 at his restaurant and on his declining permission to consume liquor inside the restaurant, they got annoyed and started causing damage to the articles/furniture. When he attempted to restrain them, they assaulted him with swords and knives. The police had already received intimation about the quarrel at 11.05 P.M. when DD No.66 B (Ex.PW10/A) was recorded. MLC (Ex.PW-8/A) was prepared where the victim/patient was examined at 11.20 P.M. The victim disclosed to the examining doctor that he was stabbed about 40 minutes prior to his arrival in the GTB hospital. The injuries were 'simple' caused by sharp object. While appearing in the court, PW-6 (Kapil Arora) proved the version given to the police at the first instance without any major improvements or variations. He attributed specific role to all the appellants for inflicting injuries on his body on his refusal to allow them to consume liquor in the restaurant. In the cross-examination the injuries sustained by the witness were not challenged. No material contradictions/discrepancies emerged regarding the version narrated by the complainant/injured. It was not suggested that the injuries were self-inflicted or accidental in nature or the appellants were not its author. The appellants did not deny their presence inside the restaurant, at the time of occurrence. No ulterior motive was proved to prompt the complainant to falsely implicate the appellants for the injuries sustained by him and to let the real culprits go scot free. The appellants had prior acquaintance with him and they all lived in the same locality. There was no previous animosity among them. The appellants got enraged when PW-6 (Kapil Arora) did not permit them to consume liquor in the restaurant. Testimony of PW-6 is in consonance with medical evidence and there is no inconsistency between the two. The testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. It is accorded a special status in law. This is a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and because the witness will not want to let the actual assailant to go unpunished merely to falsely involve a third party for the commission of the offence. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs.Naresh and Ors. , 2011 4 SCC 324, the Supreme Court held: