MOHD. ILYAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mohd. Ilyas (A-1) and Mohd.Afzal (A-2) challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 17.07.2000 in Sessions Case No. 19/2000 arising out of FIR No. 110/99 PS Geeta Colony convicting them under Sections 307/324/323/34 IPC. By an order dated 19.07.2000, they were sentenced to under RI for five years with fine Rs. 200/-, each under Section 307/34 IPC; RI for one year with fine Rs. 100/-, each under Section 324/34 IPC and SI for two months under Section 323/34 IPC. All the sentences were directed to operate concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as projected in the charge-sheet was that on 13.06.1999 at 04.30 P.M. in front of House No. 17/113, Geeta Colony, the appellants with their associates in furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to Ram Saran Dass, Shyam Sunder and Kishan Malik in an attempt to murder them. Daily Diary (DD) No. 25A (Ex.PW- 6/C) was recorded at 04.50 P.M. at PS Geeta Colony on getting information about a serious quarrel at House No. 17/113, Geeta Colony. SI Mohan Singh who was directed to investigate went to the spot with Const. Srijan and shifted injured in PCR van to SDN Hospital. The Investigating Officer collected their MLCs and lodged First Information Report after recording Ram Saran Dass's statement (Ex.PW-1/A). During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court. A-1 and A-2 were duly charged and brought to trial. In order to establish their guilt, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses and produced medical evidence. In their 313 statements, the appellants denied their complicity in the crime and alleged false implication. The trial resulted in their conviction for the offences mentioned previously giving rise to the filing of the present appeal.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants 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 witnessed without independent corroboration. No specific role in the occurrence was attributed to A-1. Vital discrepancies and improvement in the evidence were ignored without sound reasons. The complainant had attempted to implicate the appellants' father but during investigation his role could not be ascertained and no charge-sheet was filed against him. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that the injured persons have given consistent version and had no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the accused.