SUSHANT KUMAR DASS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal the appellant challenges the judgment dated 16th December, 2016 convicting him for offence punishable under Sections 452 and 307 IPC and the order on sentence dated 20th December, 2016 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months for offence punishable under Section 452 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. From the amount of fine if realized, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is to be paid to the victim/ injured Ms. Sunita.

(2.) Assailing the judgment of conviction and order on sentence learned counsel for the appellant contends that the testimony of the alleged injured witness is not reliable. The FSL report does not support the case of the prosecution. No finger prints of the appellant were found on the alleged weapon of offence. The weapon of offence if any is a vegetable cutting knife and would not thus fall in the category of a deadly weapon. The learned Trial Court failed to notice the gapping loopholes in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Though PW-1 denied having any conversation with the appellant on the date of alleged incident, however PW-6 admitted that PW-2 had conversation with the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant was known to the witnesses prior to the incident which they failed to disclose. As per PW-2, PW-1 was physically weaker than the appellant and thus it was improbable for PW-1 to have caught hold of the appellant and called the PCR. Learned counsel for the appellant states that since no opinion has been given in the MLC he is at best liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and released, as the maximum punishment that can be awarded is imprisonment for a period of one year.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that there is no contradiction in the testimony of the complainant and the injured witness. The injury caused by the appellant is dangerous in nature and was caused at vital part of the body i.e. the neck thus attracting Section 307 IPC. The appellant not only took away the injured on one side but he also threatened to kill her and her family members on refusal to marry him. The testimony of the injured witness PW-6 is corroborated to a large extent by PW-1, the complainant.