AKIL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, Akil (A-1) and Rajesh @ Gulli (A-2) question the correctness and legality of a judgment dated 29.09.2011 of Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 81/10 arising out of FIR No. 212/10 PS Ambedkar Nagar by which they were convicted under Sections 307/34 IPC. By an order dated 01.10.2011, they were awarded RI for seven years with fine Rs. 5,000/- each.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet, was that on 24.07.2010 at around 11.00 or 11.30 P.M. near House No. A-2/264, Madan Gir, New Delhi, the appellants in furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to Mohd.Ubesh by a knife in an attempt to murder him. Daily Diary (DD) No. 70B (Ex.PW-13/E) was recorded regarding the incident. ASI Tara Chand along with Const. Sahdev Singh went to the spot and came to know that the victim had already been taken to Trauma Centre, AIIMS. After recording complainant's statement (Ex.PW-1/A), he lodged First Information Report by sending rukka (Ex.PW-4/A). During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellants were arrested and pursuant to A-1's disclosure statement, the crime weapon was recovered from the house of his sister Nafisa. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants; they were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses to substantiate the charges. In 313 statements, the appellants denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication without examining any witness in defence. The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid.

(3.) During the course of hearing, Counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellants have opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction and accept it voluntarily. The matter has been settled with the injured and he has been paid Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. He prayed to take lenient view and modify the sentence order. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection to it.