The reliability of the injured witness's testimony, corroboration of evidence, and the conduct of the accused in absconding were central to the judgment.

Sunita Gupta, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 28.07.2011 and order on sentence dated 30.07.2011 arising out of Sessions Case No.91/10 in Case FIR No.132/10 P.S. Timarpur u/s 308 IPC vide which appellant was convicted u/s 308 IPC and was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three years and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 month.

2. Prosecution case, succinctly stated, is as follows:-

On the intervening night of 26.05.2010/27.05.2010, on receipt of DD No.67D regarding stabbing at Sanjay Basti, Teacher Colony, Timarpur, ASI Swadesh Kumar reached at Jhuggi No.1842, Sanjay Basti where he met Beat Constable Babar and came to know that injured has been removed to hospital by PCR. Accordingly, he along with Constable Babar went to Aruna Asaf Ali hospital where injured Ravi was found admitted. He was fit for statement, as such he recorded statement of Ravi Kumar, Ex. PW 1/A and made endorsement Ex.PW 7/B on the statement and sent rukka to police station through Constable Babar which culminated in registration of FIR. In the hospital, doctor handed over one sealed pulanda which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/C. Thereafter he came back to the spot. At the instance of mother of the injured, site plan Ex.PW 7/D was prepared. He searched for accused Rahul but he was not traceable.

3. It is further the case of prosecution that on 01.08.2010, on coming to know that accused Rahul was present in Sanjay Basti, PW-4 SI P.S. Bhardwaj, along with Constable Dharmender and Constable Baldev went to Sanjay Basti from where he was arrested. He made a disclosure statement Ex.PW4/A. He led the police party to Sai Baba Mandir, Sanjay Basti where he had stabbed Ravi Kumar. Pointing out memo of place of incident was prepared vide Ex.PW4/B. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against him.

4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined 13 witnesses. Accused pleaded his innocence and alleged false implication in this case. According to him, he had given a sum of Rs.400/- to Ravi and when he demanded the said amount again and again, he falsely implicated him in this case. Three witnesses were examined by the accused in his defence. Vide impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

Aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred.

5. Challenging the findings of the learned Trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are major contradictions in the testimony of the complainant, his mother, uncle and neighbour. The injured had admitted in his cross examination that at the time of incident, he was under the influence of liquor. Moreover his uncle Sonu deposed that he had called the police at 100 No. while his mother deposed that she called the police at 100 No. Further, initially she stated that her signatures were taken at 2-3 places by the police and then stated that police did not obtain her signatures on any paper. Further, according to PW1 and PW2, the incident took place at about 10 p.m whereas according to Sonu, it took place at about 7.30 p.m. PW-10 Lal Singh categorically denied the incident. Further according to ASI Swadesh Kumar, he recorded the statement of Parvati at the spot but Parvati deposed that her statement had been recorded in the hospital. These major contradictions are sufficient to prove the innocence of the appellant. Moreover, the injured was under the influence of liquor and to usurp the money of the appellant, he caused injuries to himself in order to implicate the appellant. Moreover, injured himself fled away from the hospital without being discharged. The appellant is not a previous convict nor is he involved in any criminal activities. He is a young person of twenty two years and is as such entitled to the benefit of probation.

6. Rebutting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, it was submitted by learned A