- (1.) Pritam Chauhan (the appellant) has questioned the legality of the judgment dated 25.08.2001 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.28/2000 arising out of FIR No.221/1999 registered at Police Station Sarita Vihar by which he was convicted under Section 307 IPC and awarded RI for three years with fine Rs. 1,000/-. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:
(2.) On 18.05.1999 at about 07.15 P.M. near Madanpur Khadar, Pritam Chauhan inflicted injuries with a knife to Sunder Singh in an attempt to murder him. The police machinery came into motion after recording Daily Diary (DD) No.43B (Ex.PW-10/A) at 07.45 P.M. at Police Station Sarita Vihar about a quarrel near Girls school, Madanpur Khadar and the investigation was taken over by SI Parveen Kumar who with Ct.Madan Pal went to the spot. The injured had already been taken to Holy Family hospital. SI Parveen Kumar recorded Sunder's statement (Ex.PW-3/A) in the hospital and lodged First Information Report after making endorsement (Ex.PW-11/A) thereon. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded and the accused was arrested. Injuries suffered by the victim were 'grievous' in nature. After completion of the investigation in a charge-sheet submitted in the court, Pritam Chauhan was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to establish the appellant's guilt. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, he pleaded false implication and examined Rajender Singh (DW-1) in defence. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 307 IPC. Being aggrieved, he has preferred the appeal.
(3.) Appellant's counsel urged that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and ignored the vital circumstance of non-recovery of crime weapon. The injuries on the victim's body were not 'dangerous' in nature and were described 'grievous' without any basis. Ingredients of Section 307 IPC were missing. Counsel adopted alternative plea for appellant's release on probation as he has a family with two children to take care of them and had remained in custody for 15 days before release on bail. He offered to pay reasonable compensation to the victim. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that multiple injuries were inflicted on various body parts of the victim and impugned judgment requires no interference.;