NEM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 21.08.2013 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.73/2009 arising out of FIR No.768/2007 PS Ambedkar Nagar by which Nem Singh (the appellant) was held guilty for committing offence under Section 307 IPC, Crl.A.1371/2013 has been preferred by him. By an order dated 29.08.2013, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 20,000/-.

(2.) Allegations against the appellant as reflected in the chargesheet were that on 26.10.2007 at 10.03 p.m. an information about a quarrel was conveyed at PS Ambedkar Nagar vide Daily Diary (DD) No.25. The investigation was assigned to HC Birbal who along with Const.Hanuman went to the spot. Victim Kailash had suffered bullet injury. The investigation was taken over by SI Rajesh Kumar, who after recording statement of one Harbir Singh lodged First Information Report. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellant Nem Singh, Ravinder Singh @ Ravi and Sanjay were arrested during investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all of them in the Court for committing offences under Sections 307/34 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses to prove its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused persons denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in appellant's conviction whereas Ravinder Singh @ Ravi and Sanjay were acquitted of all the charges. It is relevant to note that the State did not challenge their acquittal.

(3.) During the course of arguments, the appellant opted to give up challenge to the findings of the Trial Court whereby he was convicted under Section 307 IPC. Prayer was made to modify the sentence order by taking lenient view as the matter has been settled with the victim and the appellant has agreed to pay Rs. 2 lacs as compensation to him for the expenses incurred for treatment of the injuries sustained by him. Learned counsel for the complainant, after seeking instructions from the complainant / victim, stated at Bar that the complainant has no objection to modify the sentence order in view of the changed circumstances whereby he has agreed to accept Rs. 2 lacs as compensation.