- (1.) JUDGMENT of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.02.2003, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Patiala, in Sessions Case No. 44T/27.08.2001/ 60T/17.10.2002, convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 05 years besides payment of fine amounting to Rs.1000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a term of 06 months under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ''IPC") and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 02 years besides payment of fine amounting to Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a term of 02 months under Section 379, IPC, are under challenge in this appeal brought by the convict -appellant Gurmeet Singh under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C') Respondent -State is contesting the appeal.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides examining the record carefully.
(3.) IN criticism of the impugned judgment and order: It has been strenuously argued on behalf of the convictappellant that prosecution has failed to fix guilt of the appellant, much less beyond reasonable doubt, because the only witness of the occurrence, examined by the prosecution is the complainant himself and that being so, the findings of conviction cannot be sustained because the complainant being an interested witness, his evidence is required to be seen with suspicion and cannot be relied upon in the absence of independent corroboration. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Dr. I.C. Taneja, (PW1), who medico legally examined the complainant, has stated very categorically that the complainant, when brought to him, was normal and, as such, he did not feel it necessary to get his urine and blood examined. This circumstance, according to the learned counsel, demolishes the very basis of the case of the prosecution that the complainant was intoxicated by the convict/appellant to commit theft of his car and other belongings. Towards the end, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant deserves leniency, for, he has been facing the ordeal of investigation, trial and consequent proceedings since 1998 and has two daughters of marriageable age.;