RAJBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Anus Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 307 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year in respect of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad by his judgment dated 3.9.1994. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused-appellant preferred the above appeal.

(2.) According to the case of the prosecution on the intervening night of 23/24.6.1990 when the complainant Om Prakash was sleeping on a cot in front of his house, the accused who has strained relations with him came there at about 1.00 A.M. and gave a knife blow in the abdomen of Om Prakash. Thereafter Sohan Pal, brother-in-law of the complainant and his nephew Balbir who were sleeping by the side of the complainant wake up on hearing the cries of the complainant and took him to General Hospital, Ballabgarh. The accused ran away from the scene of the offence on seeing Sohan Pal and Balbir. The injured was referred to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad. The Medical Officer of B.K. Hospital, Faridabad informed the police vide Ex. PF. Then the Head Constable of Police Station, Faridabad recorded tile statement of Om Parkash under Ex. PE. On the basis of the said statement, the case was registered under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The injured was operated upon at B.K. Hospital, Faridabad. The investigation was taken up and during the course of investigation, knife was recovered from the possession of the accused and on completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and marked the documents. During the course of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also framed a charge against the accused utider Section 25 of the Arms Act. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused-was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On a consideration of the material placed before him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.