JAMEEL Vs. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jameel and Vishnu Dev Paswan challenge the impugned judgment dated 4th January, 2016 convicting them for offence punishable under Section 120B read Section 420 IPC besides convicting Vishnu Dev Paswan for offences punishable under Section 328/420 IPC and the order on sentence dated 6th January, 2016 directing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months each, for offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC. Vishnu Dev Paswan was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months, for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months, for offence punishable under Section 328 IPC. Sentence of Vishnu Dev Paswan was directed to run separately one after another.

(2.) Assailing the conviction, learned Counsel for Jameel submits that none of the prosecution witnesses including the complainant Shamshad Khan deposed about Jameel. Kamal Ali Khan (PW-5) and Ziya ul Rehman (PW-6), only deposed about Vishnu Dev Paswan who presented himself as Rameshwar Gupta and not about Jameel. Lastly, Shamshad Khan met Vishnu Dev Paswan and Firoz Khan @ Naseem (PO) at the guest house. Thus, Jameel was not even present at the guest house. Furthermore, though there is alleged recovery of currency notes, however, no evidence has been led to connect the same to the complainant. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the offences against Jameel.

(3.) Learned Counsel for Vishnu Dev Paswan urges that there was no recovery from the appellant. No proper identification of the appellant was carried out and he was identified after 7 years in Court. There is no cogent evidence on record to prove that the appellant gave cigarette to Shamshad Khan after which he felt intoxicated. There is no evidence to prove that the appellant was a part of conspiracy. The sentence imposed is harsh in nature as the sentences have been directed to run consecutively.