SHIVA @ UAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shiva @ Uan (A-1), Kallu @ Veeru (since expired) and Vicky (A-2) were sent for trial in case FIR No. 121/2009 PS Pahar Ganj on the allegations that on 10.05.2009 at 10.15 P.M. at Sadar Thana Road near corner of Street No.8, Muttani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj, they in furtherance of common intention caused injuries to Vicky and Monu in an attempt to murder them. Kallu @ Veeru expired during pendency of tiral and proceedings against him were dropped. A-1 and A-2 were held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC by a judgment dated 22.12.2011 in Sessions Case No. 119/2009. By an order dated 23.12.2011, they were sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 25,000/- each.

(2.) Daily Diary (DD) No. 2A (Ex.PW-9/A) was recorded at PS Pahar Ganj at 12.55 A.M. by PW-11 (HC Suresh Kumar) on getting information that Monu and Vicky were admitted in Lady Harding Medical College (LHMC) by Suraj. The investigation was assigned to HC Sailesh who with Const.Lalit went to the spot. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording Vicky's statement (Ex.PW-9/B). During the course of investigation, the accused persons were arrested and interrogated. The exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the three assailants. They were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. In their 313 statements the appellants pleaded false implication. Smt.Urmila appeared in their defence as DW-1.

(3.) Appellants' counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. PW-4 (Suraj) resiled from his previous statement and did not implicate the appellants. The prosecution did not examine the complainant/ victim - Vicky and adverse inference is to drawn against it. Vital discrepancies emerging in the statement of the prosecution witnesses were ignored without valid reasons. Learned APP urged that PW-5 (Monu)'s testimony is sufficient to establish the appellants' guilt and there are no sound reasons to discard his version.