CHANDAN @ MANJIT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chandan @ Manjit (the appellant) challenges a judgment dated 26.08.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 17/2009 arising out of FIR No. 245/2007 PS Kalyanpuri by which he was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. By an order dated 27.08.2011, he was sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine Rs. 10,000/-.

(2.) Daily Diary (DD) No. 22A (Ex.PW-3/A) was recorded at 14.40 hours at PS Kalyanpuri on getting information that an individual has been injured near Electricity House, GDE Cremation Ground. The investigation was assigned to ASI Rajbir Singh who with Const. Yadram went to the spot. He came to know that the injured had been taken to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital. He went there and collected the MLC of injured Dara Singh who was unfit to make statement. On reaching the spot, Mohd.Iqbal met him and after recording his statement, he lodged First Information Report. During the course of investigation, statement of the injured Dara Singh was recorded and he disclosed that Chandan who was working with him at the dairy inflicted injuries with 'Sambal' and attempted to murder him. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts. Chandan was arrested and at his instance, the crime weapon was recovered. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court against him. He was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to establish his guilt. In 313 statement, the appellant pleaded false implication. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted him for the offence mentioned previously. Being aggrieved, he has preferred the appeal.

(3.) Appellant's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimonies of interested witnesses. Injured's statement was recorded after a considerable delay of six days which remained unexplained. PW-7 (Mohd.Iqbal) is a planted witness and was not present at the spot at the time of incident. It is unclear how he was aware of the minute details of the incident which were spoken after six days by the injured. The version given by the injured apparently is in consultation with the complainant- Mohd.Iqbal. The appellant had no motive to inflict injuries upon the victim. Recovery of the weapon is highly doubtful as no independent public witness was associated. PW-7 (Mohd.Iqbal) himself was a culprit who caused injuries to Dara Singh as he was repeatedly demanding his dues. He prevailed upon the complainant and the appellant was falsely implicated in the case. Learned APP urged that the injured categorically proved the role played by the appellant in causing injuries to him and there are no sound reasons to disbelieve him. There is no variance between the ocular and medical evidence.