IMRAN @ PEHLWAN Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Imran @ Pehlwan (the appellant) impugns a judgment dated 19.08.2011 in Sessions Case No. 3/10 arising out of FIR No. 329/2009 PS Seemapuri by which he was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 01.09.2011, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine Rs. 5,000/-.

(2.) Allegations against the appellant were that on 25.09.2009 at about 09.40 P.M. at road No. 62, New Indira Market, Old Seemapuri, he and his associate in furtherance of common intention fired three rounds in an attempt to murder Jasvinder. During the course of investigation, Imran @ Pehlwan was apprehended and arrested in case FIR No. 429/09 PS Amar Colony under Section 25 Arms Act. Pursuant to his disclosure statement (Ex.PW-13/A) his involvement in the present case emerged. The Investigating Officer apprehended his associate Suleman @ Rohit @ Pehlwan on his disclosure. TIP Proceedings were conducted in which, Imran @ Pehlwan was identified by PW-3 (Mohit Chauhan). Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against both Imran @ Pehlwan and Suleman @ Rohit @ Pehlwan. Vide order dated 26.02.2010, Suleman @ Rohit @ Pehlwan was discharged. It is relevant to note that State did not challenge the said order. The prosecution examined twenty witnesses to substantiate the charges against the appellant. In 313 statement, he pleaded false implication and denied his complicity in the crime. He examined DW-1 (Mohd. Salim) in his defence. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held the appellant guilty for the offence mentioned previously and sentenced him accordingly. Being aggrieved, he has preferred the appeal.

(3.) During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge his conviction under Section 307 IPC and accepts it voluntarily. He however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has already undergone substantial period of sentence awarded to him. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection to consider the mitigating circumstances.