VIRENDER @ PAPPU ETC Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Virender @ Pappu (A-1), Rajesh @ Pappu (A-2), Surender (A-3), Anand Sharma (A-4) and Ved Prakash @ Sonu Sharma (A-5) (the appellants) impugn a judgment dated 25.07.2007 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 140/2006 arising out of FIR No. 19/2001 PS Gandhi Nagar by which they were held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 323/452/307/34 IPC. By an order dated 26.07.2007, they were sentenced to undergo RI for three years with total fine Rs. 12,000/- each.

(2.) Allegations against the appellants were that on 05.02.2001 at around 03.30 P.M. they picked up a quarrel and caused injuries to Raju Gandhi, Pawandev Gandhi, Pinki Gandhi and Ramu. Daily Diary (DD) No.21A (Ex.PW-15/H) was recorded at 16.05 P.M. at PS Gandhi Nagar on getting information about the quarrel. The investigation was assigned to SI Adesh Kumar who after recording victim Pawandev Gandhi's statement (Ex.PW-7/A) lodged First Information Report. The articles lying at the spot were seized. During the course of investigation A-1 to A- 5 were arrested. The MLCs (of the victims) were collected. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants. They were duly charged and brought to Trial. The prosecution examined seventeen witnesses to substantiate the charges. In their 313 statement, A- 1 to A-5 pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment held A-1 to A-5 guilty of the offences mentioned previously. Being aggrieved, they have preferred the appeal. Victim (Raju Gandhi) has preferred Criminal Revision Petition for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellants. It is relevant to note that State did not file any appeal/ revision against the sentence order.

(3.) I have heard the learned APP, Counsel for A-1 to A-5 and Counsel for the complainant and have examined the record. The appellants' counsel 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 witnesses. No independent public witness from the neighbourhood was associated at any stage of investigation. The ocular and medical evidence are at variance. No injury with knife was found on the victim (Raju Gandhi)'s body. Section 452 and 307 IPC are not applicable as the incident occurred at the spur of moment without pre-meditation. Identity of any stranger with the appellants at the spot has not been established and determined. Learned APP urged that the injured persons have corroborated each other on material facts and there are no good reasons to disbelieve their version. Complainant's counsel emphasised that the victim sustained injuries which were 'dangerous' in nature and the punishment awarded to the appellants was not commensurate with the offence committed by them.