AAMIR Vs. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants by the impugned judgment dated 17th November, 2016 have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 392/34 IPC whereas appellant Aamir has also been convicted for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 23rd November, 2016 the appellants have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for offence punishable under Section 392 IPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Appellant Aamir has been directed to also undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. On realisation of the amount, compensation of Rs. 5,000/- each from the fine amount imposed from Fahad and Javed and Rs. 10,000/- from Aamir has to be awarded to the complainant.

(2.) By the impugned judgment Javed was also convicted for offence publishable under Sections 392/34 IPC and awarded imprisonment for a period of one year. In the appeal filed by Javed being Crl. Appeal No. 212/2017 he did not challenge his conviction and prayed that he be released on period already undergone. Criminal Appeal No. 212/2017 was disposed of by this Court on 3rd August, 2017, directing release of Javed on the period already undergone hence by the present judgment this Court is only required to decide the appeals filed by Aamir and Fahad only.

(3.) Challenging the conviction learned counsel for appellant Aamir contends that the present is a typical case of Police Station proceedings. There are material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. The impugned judgment is silent as to how Section 392 IPC is attracted when there is no evidence that the weapon of offence, that is, ustara was used. Appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that they were falsely implicated. Case of the appellants was that they were standing at Mithai Pul at about 9.30 PM when police came and apprehended them as they were drinking at public place and falsely implicated in this case which fact has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. Even the complainant has not identified Aamir as the person who put ustara on his neck. The allegations against Aamir are limited to the extent that ustara was recovered from Aamir. Further the sketch of ustara is dated 27th September, 2014. There is no explanation why the accused was not searched despite hours of custody. Despite number of public witnesses being available at the spot, they were not joined in investigation. Though the police witnesses stated that the statement of the complainant was recorded at the spot, however, the complainant stated that his statement was recorded at the Police Station and all proceedings was conducted at the police station.