ARJUN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 24.4.2006 and 26.4.2006 respectively wherein the appellant stood convicted under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He had been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default, to undergo RI for a period of 1 month. Nominal roll of the appellant reflects that as an undertrial he had undergone incarceration of 1 month; after his conviction and before he had been granted suspension of sentence he had suffered incarceration of about 3 months meaning thereby that he has suffered incarceration for a total period of more than 4 months.

(2.) RECORD shows that on 18.8.2004 DD No. 11A was received in Police Station Sarai Rohilla. This was to the effect that an incident had taken place at Kalidas Marg, Nand Lal Piau, Shastri Nagar. Chuttan Singh (PW -2) had received injuries. At that time he was accompanied by his brother -in -law Vinod Singh (PW -1). The injuries sustained by PW -2 were grievous; he had sustained a fracture;. No eye -witness could be found at the spot but later on Darshan Lal (PW -4) claimed to have witnessed the incident. His statement was recorded. Investigation had been marked to ASI Brijeshwar Kumar (PW -13) who, along with constable Devender Kumar (PW -12), reached the spot. Appellant and co -accused persons were arrested on 27.8.2004 i.e. almost 10 days after the incident. Two persons had been charge -sheeted of whom the co -accused Ranjeet was acquitted. Arjun, the present appellant, had been convicted.

(3.) ARGUMENTS have been refuted. Learned APP for the State points out that PW -2 had identified the appellant even in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. i.e. during the course of investigation; he stuck to his stand again in Court and as such his version cannot be ignored. PW -1 and PW -4 also recited the incident in the manner in which it had occurred and corroborated the version of PW -2 on all scores except the identity. The question of identity has been answered in the version of PW -2. Learned APP for the State has placed reliance upon : JT 2013(8) SC 591 Md. Ishaque and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others, to support his submission that the version of the prosecution stands proved and time as well as place of occurrence has been established, the motive for the crime is also emanating from the version of the witnesses. Version of PW -2 that the appellant was trying to run away with the mobile phone of PW -2 when he was trying to get down along with the said boy at the bus stand is established. On all grounds the conviction of the appellant is not liable to be disturbed.