AMARJEET @ MINTO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants before this Court are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence 16.03.2006 & 18.03.2006 respectively wherein they have been convicted under Sections 307/147/148 read with Section 149 of the IPC and each of them has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of four years for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC; for the offence under Section 148 of the IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years; for the offence under Section 147 of the IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1 year; each of the three convicts have been further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- for each of the offence and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for a period of 1 year. Out of the total accumulated fine, Rs18,000/- had to be paid to the victim as compensation. The sentences were to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.PC had been granted to the appellants.

(2.) The version of the prosecution was unfolded in the statement of Kalu examined as PW-7. He had given his statement to the police on the date of the incident (Ex.PW-2/A). In this version which had been recorded in the hospital by the Investigating Officer S.B. Gautam (PW- 5) on 16.03.1998 itself (after the patient had been declared fit for statement), it had been disclosed that on the fateful day while he was resting in his room at C-11, Khajuri Khas, one boy namely Jenu along with a friend came to his room asking him about the name of some person in Meerut; PW-7 disclosed that he did not know his name; Jenu asked PW-7 to come down; PW-7 accompanied Jenu and his friend down stairs; they went to A-Block; it was about 07:00 pm; Jenu and his accomplice attacked PW-7 with fists and thereafter he was given blows with a knife; he was also attached with a talwar; he was removed to the hospital by the PCR. It was on this statement that the present FIR was registered.

(3.) The version of PW-7 on oath has reiterated the averments made in his complaint. He has deposed that on the fateful day while he was resting in his room, Jenu and one Sarkari had come to his room; they had inquired about a person from Meerut; he told them that he did not know that person; he was asked to accompany them down stairs; on reaching down, the said person along with his accomplices who were nine in number attacked PW-7; Sarkari cut his finger with a sword; Minto @ Amarjeet cut his arm; accused Moosa caught hold of him; Monu @ Praveen hit him with a rod on his head; Jenu stabbed him with a kirpan on his left leg. PW-7 became unconscious. PW-7 identified the accused persons present in Court which included the three appellants before this Court. In the course of his testimony, the Court has put a specific question to PW-7 asking him to detail the role of each of the accused persons. In answer, PW-7 stated that Monu @ Praveen hit him with an iron rod on his head. He reiterated that the police reached the spot and he had been removed to the GTB hospital. He further deposed that Monu @ Praveen was arrested by the police in his presence. In his lengthy cross-examination, he admitted that the place of incident was about 20-30 meters away from his residence; public persons had gathered there; he was present in his room along with Raju; his landlord lives on the ground floor; police had reached the spot in 15-20 minutes after he had regained consciousness; his statement was recorded in the hospital on the same day; he further stated that Sarkari and Deepak were known to him prior to the incident; he admitted that he had not mentioned the names of the accused persons in his statement Ex.PW- 2/A because he did not know their addresses. He further admitted that he had not given description of the accused persons also as he did not know them.