NAVEEN KUMAR @ BAWLA Vs. STATE(NCT) OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Naveen Kumar @ Bawla (A-1) and Raju @ Nagesh (A-2) have filed appeals to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 17.10.2012 in Sessions Case No.60/09 arising out of a FIR No.538/08 registered at Police Station Sultanpuri, by which they were held guilty for committing offences under Sections 307/34 IPC; 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. By an order on sentence dated 19.10.2012, they were awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs. 6,000/- each under Section 307/34 IPC; A-1 was further awarded RI for 3 years with fine Rs. 3,000/- under Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.

(2.) Prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet was that on 18.08.2008 at 25, Foota Road, Near Som Bazar Road, Jain Nagar, Karala, at about 3.45 p.m, the appellants in furtherance of common intention fired at complainant-Suresh Pradhan and inflicted injuries to him in an attempt to murder him while he was going by Wagon-R Car No.DL-9CQS-4962 to his office at Plot No.240, Shop No.2, Jain Nagar, Karala. Daily Dairy (DD) No.29A (Ex.PW-10/A) was recorded regarding the incident. The complainant was medically examined at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital after he was admitted by HC Om Prakash, Incharge PCR Van. SI Jaspal Singh lodged First Information Report after recording complainant's statement (Ex.PW-3/A). Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. On 27.08.08, both the appellants surrendered in the court and were arrested. A country made was pistol was recovered pursuant to A-1's disclosure statement. The exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in the court; they were duly charged; and brought to trial. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses to prove the appellants' guilt. In 313 statement, the appellants denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid.

(3.) During the course of arguments, appellants' counsel, on instructions, stated at Bar that the appellants have given up their challenge to the findings recorded on conviction. He, however, prayed to modify the sentence order as the appellants have already remained in custody for more than five years; they are not previous convicts and are first offenders. They have compromised/settled the dispute with the complainant and have paid him Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. Learned APP has no objection to consider the mitigating circumstances.