The court considered the appellant's clean past record, family responsibilities, and the nature of the victim's injuries in deciding to take the period already undergone by the appellant in custody as the substantive sentence.

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Sachin Kumar (the appellant) challenges conviction under Section 307 IPC by a judgment dated 23.09.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 34/11 arising out of FIR No. 137/2009 PS Kapashera. By an order dated 27.09.2011, he was sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine Rs.20,000/-.

2. Allegations against the appellant as set up in the charge-sheet were that on the night intervening 30.06.2009 and 01.07.2009 at about 01.15 A.M. at Budha Hospital, Gali No.2, High Tension Wali Gali, Kapashera, New Delhi, he and his associate – Bablu (not arrested) inflicted injuries to Krishan Mohan by firing at him in an attempt to murder. Information about the occurrence was conveyed to the police and Daily Diary (DD) No.3A (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded at 01.21 (night). DD No.4A (Ex.PW-1/B) recorded at 02.40 (night) at PS Kapashera on getting information about the incident from PCR. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording complainant – Krishan Mohan’s statement (Ex.PW-4/A). Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. On 08.07.2009, the appellant surrendered in the Court and was arrested. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the appellant; he was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to substantiate the charges against him. In 313 statement, he pleaded false implication and denied his complicity in the crime. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid.

3. During the hearing of the appeal, appellant’s counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge his conviction under Section 307 IPC. He, however, prayed to modify the sentence order as the appellant has already remained in custody for about 21 months besides remission. He is not a previous convict. The appellant voluntarily offered to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the victim. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection to consider the mitigating circumstances.

4. Since the appellant has given up challenge to the findings on conviction under Section 307 IPC which is based upon cogent and reliable testimony of the injured witness coupled with medical evidence, conviction under Section 307 IPC is affirmed. Sentence order dated 27.09.2011 records that the appellant was the sole bread-earner of the family; has four minor children to take care of them. He has clean past record. Nominal roll dated 10.07.2013 reveals that he has suffered incarceration for one year, eight months and five days besides remission for four months and twenty-five days as on 18.06.2013. It further reveals that he is not involved in any other criminal case and has clean antecedents; his overall jail conduct is satisfactory. He was granted interim bail on various occasions and there are no allegations that he misused the liberty or indulged in any unlawful activity during that period. The appellant was granted interim bail as his wife had to undergo surgery. The medical papers showing the critical condition of his wife were got verified and confirmed true. The victim and the appellant were known to each other prior to the incident and had visiting terms. The prosecution could not gather clear motive of the appellant to pick up a quarrel with the victim during night time at his residence. No other independent public witness was associated to find out as to under what circumstances, the occurrence took place. It appears that the complainant did not present true facts regarding the genesis of the incident. Though the appellant was known to him, he was not named in the information made at 100. The fact remains that the victim sustained injuries at the hands of the appellant and his associate – Bablu who could not be arrested. The injuries sustained by the victim were ‘simple’ in nature and he was discharged from the hospital the next day. Considering these peculiar facts and circumstances, no useful purpose wi