AFTAB @ JHANGAL Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal, Aftab @ Jhangal challenges the impugned judgment dated 24th October, 2016 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 341/392/394/397/411/34 IPC in FIR No. 95/2014 registered at PS Anand Parbat and the order on sentence dated 25th October, 2016 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offences punishable under Sections 392/394/34 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC .

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that as per the prosecution case, there is a recovery of kitchen knife from the appellant and as per the sketch of the knife, it was 28 cm long, 18 cm blade and 10 cm handle and it is nowhere stated in the testimony of any prosecution witness whether it was recovered from his pant pocket or his hand. As per the size of the knife, it is highly improbable that it can come in the pocket of pant. Thus, the recovery of knife is highly doubtful and the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. No Test Identification Parade of the appellant was conducted. The person who made a call to the police has not been cited as a prosecution witness. Lastly, as per the MLC, nature of injuries was opined to be simple. Complainant's evidence is not reliable and the appellant has been convicted solely on his testimony.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the appellant was properly identified. Furthermore, as per the DNA analysis, DNA profile generated from the source of gauze cloth piece and pants of JCL was 'similar' with the DNA profile from the source of pants of victim. Thus, complainant's version is duly corroborated.