ANGREJ SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to the judgment dated 10.12.2004 and order on sentence dated 14.12.2004 by which the appellants have been held guilty under Section 307 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.3,000/ - and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The facts of the case as noticed by the trial court are as under:

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellants submits that the trial court has failed to appreciate that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity between the complainant and the appellants. It is contended that the appellants are the tenants of the complainant, who wanted to get the shop vacated and this was the prime motive for falsely implicating the appellants. It is contended that the trial court has failed to appreciate that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses; besides the appellants have been held guilty based on the evidence of the witnesses, who are interested witnesses. It is contended that besides the interested witnesses, no independent person has been associated in the investigation, nor cited as a witness, despite the fact that the incident took place in a crowded locality; moreover, the contradictions in the evidence of PW -1 and 3 create a serious doubt in their testimony. It is further submitted that there are serious lapses on the part of the prosecution.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellants next contends that the story of the prosecution is unbelievable for the reason that the alleged weapon of offence was not shown to the doctor for his opinion as to whether the injuries on the victim could have been caused by such a weapon. It is contended that in the case of Kartarey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. reported at 1976, Crl.L.J. 13, the Supreme Court has emphasised the importance of eliciting the opinion of the medical witnesses, who had examined the injuries of the victim. Counsel has placed reliance on paragraph 25 of the judgment which reads as under: