NAVEEN @ CHEENU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present appeal, the Appellant challenges the judgment dated 3rd April, 2012 whereby the Appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 325/324/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 18th October, 2012 whereby the Appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Appellant contends that on the same set of evidence, one accused has been acquitted and three others were released on probation. Despite the fact that MLC does not state that injured Gopal was unfit for statement, the FIR was deliberately registered on the statement of his brother PW3 Amar Singh. The doctor, who prepared the MLC, was not brought in the witness box. There are material contradictions in the statement of PW3 Amar Singh and PW13 Gopal. Further PW3 did not identify the Appellant in the Court and on identification stated that Appellant was Vikas. The statement of PW13 Gopal is full of improvements and he has been duly confronted with the same. The alleged motive is that the Appellant threatened the complainant to leave the business of Cable or face consequences. However, no complaint was made in this regard. Thus, the motive has not been proved. Further on the day of the alleged incident, it was stated that someone informed the Appellant that cable was being cut. However, it is not stated that who informed that cable was being cut. Though Gopal stated that he showed the cut pieces of the cable to PW14 the Investigating Officer, however, the Investigating Officer stated that Gopal did not show the disconnected cables and he did not seize the same. No enquiry was conducted by the Investigating officer on the point that the injured Gopal was Bad Character (BC) of the area. The Appellant took the plea of alibi and produced defence witnesses. However, they have not been considered. No recovery of the alleged rod has been made from the Appellant. No public witness has been associated in support of the allegation though the area was a thickly populated area. The Appellant was neither having a license nor running the business of cable and thus had no motive to injure PW13. Hence the Appellant be acquitted of the charge framed. In the alternative, he be released on the period already undergone which is more than 2 1/2 years.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.