JITENDER KHARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Jitender Khari impugns a judgment dated 13.11.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.25/11 arising out of FIR No.291/10 PS Keshav Puram by which he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Sec. 307 IPC. By an order dated 19.11.2013, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine Rs. 50,000.00.

(2.) The factual matrix in which the appellant came to be prosecuted and convicted as reflected in the charge-sheet is that on 01.09.2010 at around 08.30 p.m. near Rajasthan Sweets / Punjab Sweets, Rumal Wali Gali, Rampura, the appellant inflicted injuries to Sunny Khari by a rod with an attempt to commit murder. Police machinery came into motion on getting information about the occurrence vide Daily Diary (DD) No.21 A (Ex.PW- 5/A) recorded on 01.09.2010 at 09.25 p.m. The investigation was marked to HC Ram Dayal who with Const. Manoj went to the spot. The injured had already been taken to the hospital. On 009.2010 at around 06.15 p.m. PW-Crl. 2 (Sumit Khari) victim's brother lodged complaint (Ex.PW-2/A) and the Investigating Officer registered the First Information Report. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellant was arrested. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under Sec. 307 Penal Code was laid before the Trial Court against the appellant. In order to establish its case the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. In 313 Crimial P.C. 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 preferred.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. No independent public witness was associated at any stage of the investigation. Glaring infirmities and contradictions emerging in the statements of the prosecution witnesses have been ignored without tangible reasons. No motive was assigned to the appellant to inflict injuries to the victim, his cousin and with whom he had no prior animosity. Crime weapon allegedly recovered in this case was not identified by the victim in his Court deposition. Learned APP urged that there are no sound reasons to disbelieve the statement of the victim who had sustained injuries 'dangerous' in nature on his body.