WASIM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 15.03.2010 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Rohini, in Session Case No: 150/07 arising out of FIR No. 707/07 (Ex. PW -2/A) registered under Sections 394/397/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Vide the impugned judgment Appellant Wasim (hereinafter referred to as 'A -1') has been convicted under Sections 394/397/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. By an order of sentence dated 15.03.2010, for offences under Section 394/397 IPC, A -1 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/ -. In default of payment of fine, A -1 has to undergo 4 month's simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, A -1 has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/ - has been imposed, in default of payment of which he has to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. Appellant Nagender (hereinafter referred to as 'A -2') has been convicted under Section 394 read with Section 34 IPC. By sentence order dated 15.03.2010, A -2 has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 5000/ - has been imposed. In default of payment of fine, A -2 is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 4 months. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under: -

(2.) THE prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined 5 witnesses. Bahadur Singh who is the complainant and an injured eye witness was produced by the prosecution as PW -2. PW -2 in his examination -in -chief deposed in the following manner: -

(3.) THE learned Counsel for A -1 has challenged the impugned judgment on two counts. Firstly, it has been contended that the 10 i.e., SI Pawan Kumar has not been examined/produced by the prosecution which is a serious infirmity and lapse on part of the prosecution. Secondly, it is urged that Malkhana moharir with whom the knife Ex. P -1 was deposited has also not been produced or examined by the prosecution. Hence, the recovery of knife Ex. P -1 from A -1 has not been established beyond doubt. In this regard, the learned Counsel for A -1 has placed reliance on State of Rajasthan vs. Gurmail Singh, : (2005) 3 SCC 59 and Des Raj @ Dass vs. State, : 2000 Cri. L.J. 2083 (Del).