SOHAN LAL @ SONU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition the Appellant challenges the judgment dated 21st April, 2011 convicting the Appellant for offences under Section 394/397 IPC and the order on sentence dated 21st April, 2011 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years along with fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The charge for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC was also proved however no separate conviction was ordered as the same was a part of substantive offences under Sections 394/397 IPC.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Appellant contends that the Appellant was not arrested at the spot. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. The Appellant has been allegedly arrested on a secret information. It is not known how the secret informer came to know. The secret informer has not been examined. There is discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses as to the place of arrest. PW1 the Investigating Officer states that the Appellant was arrested from the jhuggi whereas PW4 and PW9 states that the Appellant was arrested from the park. Though it is alleged that the blood stained shirt and knife have been recovered however, the CFSL report does connect the same with the crime. PW2 Narender uncle of Chander is not an eye witness as he stated that PW1 Chander had already crossed the red light when two persons showed him the knife. There are improvements with regard to the recovery of the mobile phone, medical insurance documents and identity card. Statements of PW1 and PW2 before the Court are full of improvements and contradictions. Hence the Appellant be acquitted of the charges.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.