DEEPAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Deepak impugns a judgment dated 25.01.2000 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 10/98 arising out of FIR No. 95/97 PS Model Town whereby he was convicted under Sections 307, 394 reach with Section 397 IPC and by an order dated 27.01.2000, awarded RI for seven years with fine Rs. 10,000/- under Section 307 IPC; RI for seven years with fine Rs. 10,000/- under Section 397 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as projected in the charge-sheet was that on 28.01.1997 at about 08.15 A.M. at B-412, Lal Bagh, Aakash Tailors, GTK Road, Delhi, Deepak and his companion Pankaj in furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to Man Singh by a knife and deprived Madan Lal of Rs. 800/- after stabbing him. The police machinery came into motion when Daily Diary (DD) No. 5A was recorded at PS Model Town at 09.20 A.M. on getting information from duty constable Rattan Pal informing admission of Man Singh and Madan Lal in Hindu Rao Hospital. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording Madan Lal's statement (Ex.PW-1/A). During investigation, efforts were made to find out the culprits in vain. Subsequently, Deepak was arrested in FIR No. 187/91, PS Sulatanpuri and was taken into custody in this case (he was earlier Proclaimed Offender). Pankaj could not be apprehended and arrested. After completion of investigation, Deepak was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses and produced medical evidence. In 313 statement, the appellant pleaded false implication. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted Deepak giving rise to the filing of the present appeal.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 testimony of PW- 1 (Madan Lal), who resiled from the Court statement in the crossexamination. The appellant was not charged under Section 392 IPC and conviction under Section 397 IPC is unsustainable in the absence of nonrecovery of crime weapon. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that both the victims have fully supported the prosecution and their testimony has been corroborated by medical evidence.