VINOD TYAGI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vinod Tyagi (A-1) and Rajiv Kumar (A-2) challenge the judgment dated 03.03.2004 in Sessions Case No.117/2002 arising out of FIR No.140/2000 registered at Police Station S.N.Puri by which they were held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine Rs. 5,000/- each.

(2.) Daily Diary (DD) No.30-B (Ex.PW4/1) was recorded at Police Station S.N.Puri, New Delhi on 25.04.2000 at 03.50 P.M. on getting information from duty Constable Santosh Kumar at AIIMS that Constable Narender Kumar had admitted Rahul Sharma in injured condition from PGDAV college. The investigation was assigned to SI P.C.Yadav who with Constable Mukesh went to AIIMS. He recorded victim's statement (Ex.PW-1/1). Rahul Sharma disclosed that on 25.04.2000 when he with his friend Ravinder Kumar was present in the college to take exams, A-1 with his associates including A-2 reached there and picked up a quarrel with him. He inflicted injuries with a knife. A-2 and other associates caught hold him. He was stabbed with knife twice on his back by A-1. When Ravinder intervened to save him, he was also given beatings. SI P.C.Yadav made endorsement (Ex.PW-10/1) and lodged First Information Report. During the course of investigation, statement of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Victim's MLC and injury report were collected. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against both the accused. They were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to substantiate the charges. In their 313 statement both the accused pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment convicted the appellants under Section 307/34 IPC. Being aggrieved, they have preferred the appeals.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. Inherent defects in the prosecution's case and statements of witnesses were ignored without any valid reasons. Recovery of knife is suspicious and doubtful and is of no consequence as 'blood' was not detected on it in FSL report. Presence of PW-3 (Ravinder Kumar) at the spot is highly doubtful. No independent public witness was associated at any stage of investigation. Constable Narender who admitted the victim in AIIMS was not examined. The ocular testimony is in conflict with medical evidence. The prosecution could not establish appellants' motive to inflict injuries to the victim. A-2 was not known to the injured prior to the incident and had no animosity with him. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that testimony of PW-1 (Rahul), an injured witness, inspires confidence and there are no reasons to discard his cogent version.