Fri. Apr 23rd, 2021

Khel Bahadur vs State on 1 June, 2017

2 min read

2. Assailing the conviction, Learned Counsel for the appellant contends
that though the case of the prosecution is that soon after the incident the
complainant made a PCR call and on the Police reaching the spot, appellant
and ‘A’ the juvenile were apprehended from near the place of incident and

CRL.A. 1672/2014 Page 1 of 9
thereafter the FIR was registered, however in the rukka the complainant did
not state that the appellant is the one who showed him the knife. In his
deposition before the Court the complainant for the first time stated that the
appellant was the person who showed him the knife at the time of incident.
Though appellant and the co-accused were apprehended from the same park
from where the recovery was made, however when the appellant was
apprehended no knife was recovered from him. As per the complainant
there was no light in the park from where the appellant was apprehended,
however SI Sanjay and Constable Dhananjay, the two witnesses of the
recovery of the knife on 26th December, 2012 allegedly carried out in the
evening, stated that they were not carrying torches with them and the area
was lit by mercury light. From the testimony of the witnesses, time of the
recovery of the alleged weapon of offence is also doubtful. Despite the fact
that the incident took place where many public persons were present, there
being two CNG stations nearby, public witnesses were neither associated at
the time of apprehension of the appellant and the co-accused nor at the time
of recovery of the alleged weapon of offence. No site plan was prepared
from where the weapon of offence was allegedly recovered. PCR officials
who reached the spot have not been examined as prosecution witnesses. As
per the complainant after he made the PCR call, the PCR officials with SI
Sanjay from PS Samaipur Badli reached the spot at 8.30 PM in Police gypsy
whereas SI Sanjay in his cross-examination stated that he went to spot by
private motorcycle, thus examination of the PCR officials was necessary to
clarify these facts. There are contradictions in the testimony of Arvind
Kumar complainant and the investigating officer SI Sanjay and Constable
Anil. Arvind Kumar deposed that there were three boys who were trying to

CRL.A. 1672/2014 Page 2 of 9
hide themselves in the park at the alleged place of apprehension whereas the
two Police officials in their depositions did not claim as to where the three
boys were present. They stated that the accused persons were apprehended
from the park situated behind the CNG station. It is thus prayed that the
appellant be acquitted of the charges framed and in the alternative since
there is a material improvement on the aspect that the appellant was the
person who showed the knife he be acquitted for charge for offence
punishable under Section 397 IPC and released on the period undergone.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply