SANDEEP @ SANJEEV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Sandeep @ Sanjeev, by way of the present appeal, has assailed the judgement and order on sentence dated 29.04.2011 and 13.05.2011 respectively whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years under Section 397 IPC and for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs.1000/ -. In default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 10 days. Both the sentences CRL.A.396/2012 Page 1 of 14 have been directed to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (,,Cr.P.C.) has been granted to the appellant.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is under: -

(3.) PER contra, the Mr. Manoj Ohri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are no material discrepancies in versions deposed by the two eye witnesses. Furthermore, the appellant was apprehended at the spot itself and the same is proved beyond doubt by depositions of police witnesses as well as the eye witnesses. The recovery of the churra from the appellant has also been proved. The sketch of the churra proved as Ex PW - 4/A reveals that the length and breadth of the churra is 34cm and 5 cm respectively. Therefore, the size of the churra as indicated by Ex PW -4/A is sufficient to bring the said weapon within the purview of deadly weapon. As regards charge under Section 397 IPC, the learned APP submitted that from the language of Section 397 IPC, it is manifest that mere use of deadly weapon is sufficient to attract a charge/conviction under Section 397 IPC and it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish that injury was inflicted on the victim. In this behalf, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashfaq vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported as (2004) 3 SCC 116. The learned APP has further invited my attention to the statement made by the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to contend that contradictory answers have been furnished by the appellant to the questions suggesting his presence at the spot.