MAHENDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mahender and Vikas challenge the impugned judgment dated 14th December, 2016 convicting them for offences punishable under Section 392/34 and Section 25 Arms Act. Mahender was also convicted for the offence punishable under section 397 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 2nd January, 2017, they were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each, for offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days each, for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act. Mahender was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC.

(2.) Assailing the conviction, Learned Counsel Vikas submitted that there was no recovery from him. Vikas has no criminal antecedents, thus, he be released on the period already undergone.

(3.) Learned Counsel for Mahender submitted that there were contradictions in the testimonies of Kartik (PW-1), SI Vineet (PW-3) and Ct. Lekh Ram (PW-4). As per the prosecution story, the incident took place at 1:45 P.M., however, Kartik stated that the incident took place at 12 midnight. Kartik stated that the appellant had thrown away the knife however, SI Vineet stated that on search, knife was recovered by Lekh Ram. However, Lekh Ram stated that the search had already taken place. The use of knife has not been proved.