RAHUL MAKKAR Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Rahul Makkar challenges the correctness and legality of a judgment dated 11.09.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 7/11 arising out of FIR No. 265/10 PS Geeta Colony by which he was held guilty under Section 307 IPC. By an order dated 14.09.2012, he was awarded RI for four years with fine Rs. 5,000/-.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the chargesheet was that on 05.10.2010 at about 08.00 P.M. in front of house No. 12/99, Geeta Colony, the appellant and his father Satish Makkar in furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to Rakesh Kumar and Amandeep Singh by a sharp edged weapon in an attempt to murder. Daily Diary (DD) No. 27A (Ex.PW-8/C) was recorded at PS Geeta Colony at 20.17 hours regarding the incident and the investigation was assigned to ASI Satyapal Singh. The victims were taken to Dr.Hedgewar Hospital. From there, Amandeep Singh was taken to Kailash Hospital for better treatment. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after making an endorsement (Ex.PW-11/A) on the written complaint (Ex.PW- 1/A) given by the complainant Rakesh Kumar. During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. On 06.10.2010, the appellant was arrested and pursuant to his disclosure statement, the crime weapon i.e. knife was recovered from the flower pot lying outside his house. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against both Rahul Makkar and his father (Satish Makkar); they were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. DW-1 (Vidhya Bhushan) and DW-2 (Tilak Raj) were examined in defence. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on appreciation / evaluation of the evidence, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted Satish Makkar of the charges and convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC. It is pertinent to note that State did not challenge the acquittal (of Satish Makkar).

(3.) Appellant's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell in grave error in relying upon the testimonies of the interested witnesses without independent corroboration. PW-3 (Pawan Chaudhary), brother-in-law of the complainant Rakesh Kumar did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. The recovery of the knife is suspect as no blood was found on it and no independent public witness was associated at the time of alleged recovery. The prosecution witnesses have made vital improvements as in their initial statement, the complainant had not disclosed use of 'knife'. The appellant was arrested on the next day of the incident and he did not attempt to abscond. DW-2 (Tilak Raj) has specifically deposed that the victims and their associates assaulted the appellant and gave beatings to him. The police did not medically examine the appellant. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that there are no sound reasons to disbelieve the statements of the injured witnesses who have categorically assigned specific role to the appellant in inflicting injuries by a knife to them.