RAJENDER SINGH @ MONU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the common impugned judgment dated May 18, 2012 Rajender Singh, Naresh and Vijay have been held guilty for offence punishable under Sections 392/34 IPC besides Rajender Singh was also held guilty for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated May 25, 2012 Rajender Singh has been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years besides imposing a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offences punishable under Sections 392/397 IPC and Vijay has been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years besides the fine of Rs.10,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offences punishable under Sections 392/34 IPC . Since Naresh has been acquitted by this Court in Crl.A. 867/2012 decided on 1st April, 2014, this Court is only concerned with the conviction of Rajender Singh and Vijay in the present appeals.

(2.) Challenging the conviction learned counsel for the Rajender Singh contends that there are contradictions in the testimony of PW-4 and PW-7. PW-4, Inderjeet Singh stated that he received the call from the police station around 8 P.M., however as per the testimony of PW-7 HC Manoj Kumar, the SIM was recovered at 9:30 P.M.PW-4 is a planted witness. No test identification parade was got conducted. While placing reliance upon the decision reported as 1952 CriLJ 986 Kartar Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, it is submitted that identification in the police station has no evidentiary value. There is delay in lodging the FIR and no plausible explanation has been given by the complainant. Reliance is placed upon AIR 1973 SC 501 Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu. The recovery of the dagger is doubtful from the statement of PW-7. While placing reliance upon the decision reported as AIR (29) 942 All 426 Ramain Rai v. Emperor, it is submitted that the police officer has no authority to search a person until he has been arrested. There is no reason to discard the defense witness. Alternatively, it is prayed that the appellant be released on the period already undergone.

(3.) Learned counsel for Vijay contends that no complaint was lodged on 28th March, 2007. No public witness was joined at the time of recovery. No call detail records have been placed on record to show whether PW-4 actually received the phone call from the police station. Mobile phone was planted by the complainant himself. There is no specific allegation against the appellant as per the statement of PW-1, Rakesh.