DEEP SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Deep Singh and Preetam challenge the impugned judgment dated 23rd September 2015 whereby Deep Singh was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 394/397 IPC and Preetam was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 394 IPC and 25 Arms Act and the order on sentence dated 29th September 2015 whereby Deep Singh was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offences punishable under Sections 394/397 IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and Preetam was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 394 IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) Learned counsel for Deep Singh contends that as per the complainant's testimony four persons got down from the TSR. He has further stated in his testimony that once the three persons were apprehended 60-70 public persons gathered there but none of them have been examined by the prosecution. He further submits that Deep Singh was not apprehended from the spot but rather was apprehended 2 months 10 days later. He further submits that Deep Singh declined to undergo TIP as the Investigating Officer had already got him identified.

(3.) Learned counsel for Preetam pointing out to the various inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant submits that the complainant in his examination in chief stated that after he was discharged from the hospital he alongwith the Investigating Officer went to Chilla village near Queen Mary School but in his cross examination he stated that after he was discharged from the hospital he went to the Police Station and signed the documents over there. The complainant has further deposed in his testimony that he had chased the offenders on the motorcycle of an unknown person but Ct. Sanjay Kumar and Ct. Ram Kishan have deposed that they had seen the complainant riding as a pillion on the motorcycle driven by Ct. Sumit. The complainant has also deposed that he reached the police station at about 10:45 P.M. while the Investigating Officer has deposed that he had left the Police Station at around 10:00 P.M. and remained in the hospital with the injured for about 1-1.5 hours. The complainant has further stated that he left the police station finally around 12:30 A.M. 1:00 A.M. but his signatures are present on the arrest memo and the personal search memo of the accused persons which were stated to be prepared at 3:45 A.M. The complainant has stated that his statement was recorded in the police station while the Investigating Officer has deposed that he recorded the statement of the complainant in the hospital. He further submits that there are various inconsistencies in the deposition of the witnesses with respect to the recovery of knife from Preetam. He further points out that the three injuries as per the MLC are Contused Lacerated Wounds however an injury caused by a knife is never a lacerated or contused wound but an incised wound. He further submits that the complainant's wallet or phone were not recovered and the site plan has also not been signed by the complainant. He submits that in a case when two views are possible the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the court. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, 2007 3 SCC 755 and Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, 2007 4 SCC 415.