RAKESH SEHGAL & ANR Vs. STATE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners to challenge the legality and propriety of an order dated 06.05.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.117/13 arising out of FIR No.50/91 registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla by which they were convicted for committing offence under Section 323/506 (2) and 451 read with Section 34 IPC after setting aside acquittal order dated 01.06.2010 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate. They were ordered to be released on probation probation for a period of two years besides payment of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The revision petition is contested by respondent No.2/complainant.

(2.) Briefly stated, prosecution case was that on 27.02.91 at 7.45 a.m. at A-653, Shastri Nagar, the petitioners along with their mother (since expired) and an 'unknown' individual physically assaulted Sanjiv Mehta and Krishna Mehta after committing house-trespass. They also criminally intimidated and threatened to kill them. DD No.9A dated 27.02.1991 about the occurrence came into existence. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report on 28.02.1991 at Police Station Sarai Rohilla after making endorsement (Ex.PW10/D) over it. The complainant was medically examined. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused persons were arrested. Upon completion of the entire investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court against the petitioners and their mother Sawarna under Sections 452/506/323/34 IPC. By an order dated 17.11.1993, the accused persons were charged for committing offences under Sections 451/506/323 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses in all. The accused persons denied the allegations and pleaded false implication in 313 statements. During pendency of the trial, Sawarna expired and proceedings against her were dropped as abated. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by an order dated 01.06.2010 acquitted the petitioners of the charges. Aggrieved by it, the complainant challenged it in appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the findings of the Trial Court and convicted the petitioners for the offences mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the appellate court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and overlooked major infirmities and discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The complainant had prior animosity as his sister Meenakshi Gupta had attempted to evict them from the rented premises i.e. Flat No.9, Apna Ghar Cooperative Group Housing Society Pitam Pura. Meenakshi Gupta was not examined during trial. Prosecution was unable to seize victim's blood stained clothes; to recover weapon of crime and produce original of DD No.9A. Reliance has been placed by the petitioners on K.Chinnaswami vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1962 AIR(SC) 1788 Mohit vs. State of U.P., 2013 3 JCC 2250; Dinesh Kumar vs. State & Anr.,2013 3 JCC 2218; Amit Kapoor vs.Ramesh Chander, 2012 4 JCC 2885; Kumar etc.vs.Karnataka Indust., 2013 1 JCC 731; Mohd.Hammad vs. The State, 2012 1 JCC 424; Govinda Raju vs. State, 2012 3 JCC 1714; Amit Singh Bedi vs.State, 2012 2 JCC 901; Narender Pal Kaur vs.Manjit Singh, 2012 2 JCC 1166; State vs.Sushil Kumar, 2014 2 JCC 1076; State vs.Ravi, 2014 3 JCC 1649; State vs. Arun, 2013 4 JCC 2492; Pudhu Raja vs. State, 2012 4 JCC 2751; Murugesan vs. State, 2013 1 JCC 118; Suryakant vs.Dalip, 2014 4 JCC 2356; and Directorate of Revenue vs.Mohd.Anwar, 2013 3 JCC 120.