UMESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UMESH was charged for the offence under Section 307/324/34 of the IPC but has been convicted only under Section 324/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, fine of Rs. 2000/ - and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 324/34 of the IPC by judgment and order dated 8.12.2010/13.12.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in S.C No. 48/10 arising out of FIR No. 441/06 (P.S. Badarpur).

(2.) UMESH (appellant) and one Om Shiv were handed over to the police by members of the public on 02.06.2006. An information was received in the police station on 02.06.2006 (DD No. 89B) that some persons have been injured. Pursuant to such an information, ASI Mohinder Singh (PW -22) along with Constable Bachu Singh (PW -10) reached the place of occurrence at Badarpur where the members of the public, after beating the appellant and co -accused, handed them over to the police. The police was informed that the aforesaid two persons had inflicted injuries on Balvinder Singh (PW -1); Ranjeet Singh (PW -2); Gurmeet Singh (PW -3), Rajender (PW -4) and Santosh Kumar (PW -5). A blood stained knife was recovered from the possession of Om Shiv whereas a farsa is stated to have been recovered from Umesh, the appellant.

(3.) BALVINDER Singh (PW -1) gave his statement that a scuffle took place between the boys who were dancing in a marriage party. One of the miscreants hurled a knife blow on his person but he could manage to ward off that attack. Another person tried to inflict knife injuries but PW -1 caught hold of the butt of the knife. In the process, he injured himself. When his brother -in -law came to his rescue, he too was given a knife blow. Gurdeep, another friend of PW -1 was assaulted on his head by means of farsa by one of the miscreants. Other persons who were participating in the marriage party were also injured by the accused persons. Two of the miscreants, one being the appellant, was apprehended by the members of the public whereas others managed to run away.