LAL BAHADUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.1.2005 and order on sentence dated 24.01.2005. Case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court is as under: -

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the testimony of the doctor that Hukam Singh and Dharmender had sustained simple injuries and these injuries could well have been caused due to a fall. Counsel submits that the complainant was never hospitalized and he went to the police station on 5.3.2001. Counsel also submits that the recovery of the danda has not been proved and further there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution. Mr.Dubey next contends that the said witnesses of the prosecution are interested witnesses and are inimical towards the appellant. It is also the case of the appellant that the judgment of the Trial Court is based on surmises and assumptions and is not based on the evidence on record. Counsel also submits that the Trial Court should have granted the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and Probation of Offenders Act as the appellant has no previous history and has not been convicted in the past. Counsel submits that the appellant has suffered through long trial and has undergone more than 15 days during the period of trial and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 4 months is not commensurate with the alleged offence. Per contra learned counsel for the State submits that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt. The evidence of PW -1 Hukum Singh and PW -4 Dharmender are consistent, truthful and reliable. PW -8 SI Om Singh, PW -10 Ct.Duli Chand and Ct.Jitender were first to reach on the place of the incident and receipt of DD No.24A and 25A dated

(3.) ON careful examination of the evidence of the PW -1 and PW -4, I find their evidence to be trustworthy and truthful and there are no material contradictions. Thus, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court. At this stage, counsel for the appellant submits that the sole surviving appellant Lal Bahadur has no previous conviction. The doctor has opined the injuries to be simple. The appellant has been through the rigors of the trial and the incident relates back to the year 2001 and it is pleaded that the order of sentence should be modified to the period already undergone. Mr.Ghazi submits that in case order on sentence is to be modified the appellant should be directed to pay fine and also compensation to the victims.