SURESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned judgment of 9th October, 2001 appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 307/324/34 of IPC and vide order of 10th October, 2001 he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine for the offence under Sections 307/34 of IPC and for the offence under Section 324/34 of IPC, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine and with default clause. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. The factual background of this case emerging from impugned order is as under:-

(2.) The material deposition is of injured-Chotu (PW-5); Ram Chander (PW-1), who had removed the injured to the hospital and has provided corroboration to the ocular version. Dr. Vinit Malik (PW-3) has proved the MLC of the injured. SI Raj Kumar (PW-8) is the Investigating Officer of this case, who had filed charge-sheet after completion of the investigation.

(3.) At the hearing, impugned judgment was assailed by learned counsel for appellant on the ground that even if substratum of prosecution case is accepted, still the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC is not made out. Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of appellant that appellant is a poor person who earns his livelihood by working as a Rickshaw Puller and has three children and a wife to support and so, he be released on probation. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in it as appellant had facilitated the commission of offence in question.