RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -Ranjit Singh impugns a judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 07.08.2014 in Sessions Case No.32/2014 arising out of FIR No.70/1989 under Section 353/332/307 IPC and 27 Arms Act registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar by which he was convicted under Section 332 IPC and 27 Arms Act. By an order dated 11.08.2014, he was sentenced to undergo RI for two years with fine Rs. 1,000/ - under Section 332 IPC and RI for three years with fine Rs. 1,000/ - under Section 27 Arms Act.

(2.) ALLEGATIONS against the appellant were that on 16.03.1989 at about 11:02 a.m. at Gali No.18, Ajit Nagar, Gandhi Nagar near Railway Line, to avoid apprehension, he inflicted injuries by a knife to Ct.Virender Singh and Ct.Girraj Singh when they along with SI Radha Raman, SI Devi Dayal, ASI Tej Pal etc. were on patrolling duty in the area. The victims were taken to hospital for medical examination. A knife recovered from the appellant was seized and FIR was lodged. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the appellant for committing various offences. By an order dated 18.05.1992 charges under Section 307 IPC and 27 Arms Act were framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined PW -1 (Dr.Rajiv Grover) PW -2 (HC Virender Singh), and PW -4 (Radah Raman). Thereafter, the appellant absented and was finally declared Proclaimed Offender. The file was consigned to record room under Section 299 Cr.P.C. by an order dated 19.07.1997. Subsequently, the appellant was arrested on 15.01.2014 and a Kalandra under Section 41.1 (C) Cr.P.C. was filed; the case was reopened. The witnesses already examined were recalled. The prosecution further examined PW -3 (Ct.Shyamvir), ASI Giriraj Singh and (PW -6) HC Sushil Kumar. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. It is relevant to note that the State did not challenge appellant's acquittal under Section 307 IPC. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the appeal.

(3.) APPELLANT 's counsel urged that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence in its correct and true perspective and fell in grave error to rely upon the testimonies of the police officials without independent corroboration. They have given divergent and conflicting statements as to how and under what circumstances, the appellant was arrested. The appellant was severally beaten by the police officials on his refusal to pay illegal gratification and the MLC reflects sustaining of multiple injuries on his body. Learned APP urged that the prosecution has examined victims who sustained injuries and there are no reasons to disbelieve them.