AMIT Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 14.3.2013 and 21.3.2013 respectively wherein the appellant had been convicted under Sections 392 read with Section 397 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 2 days.

(2.) NOMINAL roll of the appellant reflects that as on date he has undergone incarceration of about 3 1/2 years which included remissions awarded to him.

(3.) ON behalf of the appellant learned Amicus Curiae submits that this is a clear case of false implication. Attention has been drawn to DD No. 18A wherein the first information of this incident was recorded. This information was given by Arun Shah (PW -6) wherein he had stated that one boy had attacked him with Chaaku (knife). He knows that boy. Attention has thereafter been drawn to the complaint of PW -5 wherein he had stated that the accused had been armed with the half blade. Submission being that this knife had suddenly become a blade; this was for the reason that the prosecution was not clear about its stand. Argument being propounded that the appellant had been falsely roped in for the reason that PW -6 had worked in his house as a labourer and there was the money dispute which had now been converted to this false complaint. Additional submission being that it is the defense of the appellant right from inception and same suggestion has been given to the witnesses of the prosecution and thereafter the same stand had been taken by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. A sufficient dent has been created in the version of the prosecution. Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and a consequent acquittal. In the alternate submission being that case under Section 397 of the IPC is not made out as a half edge blade even presuming was the weapon of offence but it would not amount to a deadly weapon within Section 397 of the IPC and the appellant is accordingly entitled to a modification of his sentence from Section 397 to Section 392 of the IPC. The period of incarceration already suffered by him be treated as the sentence imposed upon him.