ABDUL Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment dated 25th February, 2017 convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 394 / 34 IPC in FIR No. 316/2016 registered at PS Seelam Pur and the order on sentence dated 7th March, 2017 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there are material contradictions in the testimony of Bittoo Kumar (PW-2). Bitto Kumar had stated that the appellant had caused injury on his head with the broken bottle, however, his version is not corroborated by the MLC Ex. PW-3/A. Even, Dr. Adiba (PW-3) does not mention about any injury on the head of Bittoo Kumar. Since the MLC does not state the nature of injury, thus, benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant. Further, there are inconsistencies in his testimony with respect to the denomination of the currency as the complainant did not state the denomination in his statement recorded before the police. There is discrepancy in the sequence of events with respect to the fact that whether Bittoo Kumar was first taken to the police station or Jag Parvesh Hospital. There is a delay of 45 minutes in reporting of the incident to the police as the incident took place at 3:15 P.M. however, DD No. 21A was recorded at 4:00 P.M. Since the appellant has not been apprehended from the spot, it is urged that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. No public witness was examined. Lastly, there is no recovery of the blood stain clothes or earth control or the weapon of offence.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that these are only minor contradictions in the testimony of Bittoo Kumar which do not go to the root of the matter. Version of the injured is corroborated by the MLC Ex. PW-3/A. The appellant was apprehended from the spot.