SATISH AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 30.08.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 47/12 arising out of FIR No. 114/09 PS Dwarka by which the appellants - Satish @ Shastri (A -1), Hira Lal @ Lucky (A -2) and Ravinder @ Kale (A -3) were convicted under Ss. 307/34 IPC, they have filed the instant appeals to assail its correctness, propriety and legality. By an order dated 10.09.2013, A -1 was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 25,000/ -; A -2 and A -3 were awarded RI for four years with fine Rs. 25,000/ - each.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as stated in the charge - sheet was that on 23.02.2009 in between 05.30 to 06.00 p.m. in front of MCD Primary School, village Kakrola, the appellants in furtherance of common intention along with their associates inflicted injuries to the complainant - Sunil Kumar in an attempt to murder him. The incident was reported to the police at 06.15 p.m. vide Daily Diary (DD) No. 20 (Ex.PW -12/A). The investigation was assigned to ASI Dharam Pal who after recording victim - Sunil Kumar's statement (Ex.PW -2/A) lodged First Information Report. The victim was taken initially to Ayushman Hospital and later on referred to Max Hospital where he was medically treated and operated. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellants and their associates - Vinod @ Sonu and Vibhishan @ Sumit were arrested. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against all of them in the Court. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the appellants denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. They did not produce any evidence in defence. It is relevant to note that accused Vibhishan @ Sumit was discharged vide order dated 28.01.2010. After appreciating the rival contentions of the parties and scrutinizing the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment acquitted Vinod @ Sonu of the charges. State did not challenge their acquittal / discharge. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeals have been preferred by the appellants.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file minutely. Appellants' counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error to base conviction upon the testimonies of the interested witnesses only. Major discrepancies and infirmities emerging in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were ignored without cogent reasons. On the same set of evidence, Vinod @ Sonu was acquitted by the Trial Court. The Trial Court overlooked the fact that the complainant had oblique motive to falsely implicate A -1 as he belonged to rival political party. Counsel further urged that crime weapons were allegedly recovered from an 'open' place. Moreover, PW -1 (Dr.Kumud Rai) categorically informed that the injuries sustained by the victim were not possible with the 'knives' recovered in the instant case. Counsel pointed out certain interpolations in the MLC (Ex.PW -6/A) to suspect its authenticity. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that no sound reasons prevail to disbelieve the injured witness.