JAVED Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these appeals is a judgment dated 25.02.2016 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.112/12 arising out of FIR No.450/11 registered at Police Station Welcome by which the appellants Javed (A-1), Shahid (A-2), Shakir (A-3) and Rashid (A-4) were held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 452/307/341/34 IPC. By an order dated 27.02.2016 they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with fine Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 307 IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine Rs. 500/- each under Section 452 IPC; and Simple Imprisonment for one month each under Section 341 IPC. All the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet was that on 05.12.2011 in between 9.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. at House No.B- 213, Gali No.5, Kabir Nagar, Delhi, the appellants in furtherance of their common intention inflicted injuries to Kishan Veer and Rajbir in an attempt to commit murder after committing house trespass and wrongfully restraining them. The police machinery came into motion when DD No.25-B (Ex.PW12/A) came into existence at 11.02 a.m. on getting information about the quarrel at the spot. The Investigation was assigned to SI Rizwan who after recording Rajbir's statement (Ex.PW-1/A) lodged First Information Report. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellants' counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and material discrepancies and infirmities emerging in the statements of the prosecution witnesses have been ignored without cogent reasons. The appellants had no intention to commit murder and were not the authors of the injuries. The FIR was lodged on Rajbir's statement (PW-1) who was not even present at the spot; he did not take the injured, his brother, to the hospital. No blood was detected on the crime weapon i.e. scissor. Delay in lodging the FIR has remained unexplained. Name of the individual who had come to get Rs. 500/- is not clear. Defence version has not been given any weightage. Recovery of the weapon of offence is doubtful. Learned Additional Public Prosecutors urged that there are no sound reasons to disbelieve the testimonies of the injured witnesses who have corroborated the testimony of each other on material aspects.