SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 5.9.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.29/10 arising out of FIR No.359/07 registered at Police Station Maya Puri by which the appellant Sunil Kumar was held guilty for committing offence under Section 307 IPC, the instant appeal has been filed by him. Vide order dated 09.09.2014, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years with fine Rs.5,000/ -.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge -sheet was that on 19.10.07 at about 2.00 a.m. at Tiraha near A -42, Maya Puri, the appellant sharing common intention with co -accused Narender Parsad (facing trial before Juvenile Justice Board) voluntarily caused injuries by a sharp object at Davender Singh's chest in an attempt to commit murder. The incident was conveyed to the police vide Daily Dairy (DD) No.8A (Ex.PW -1/C) at around 2.10 night. The Investigation was assigned to SI Nanak Chand who along with Const.Jitender went to the spot. After recording victim's statement (Ex.PW2/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. The statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused persons were arrested. Pursuant to disclosure statement, the appellant recovered the crime weapon. Upon completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against both the accused persons in the court. To establish its case the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. During the course of arguments, the appellant's counsel, on instructions, stated that the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. Prayer was, however, made to take lenient view and to release the appellant for the period already undergone by him in this case due to mitigating circumstances. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the injuries caused to the victim were 'grievous' in nature and no leniency is called for.