Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC in which the accused claimed innocence and false implication. He further claimed that prior to the present incident, one kalandra was registered at PS Bawana wherein he as well as complainant Sumit were named. The same was disposed of but due to the said kalandra, complainant Sumit was having enmity with him and due to the said reason, he got him falsely implicated in the present case. No defence evidence was led on behalf of the accused.

41.2. In light of the above said reasons, it has to be observed that the testimony of PW-3 Sumit which is corroborated by his medical record Ex. PW-11/A is credible and trustworthy. Defence of Accused

42. The defence pleaded on behalf of the accused is rather contradictory one. That while conducting the cross examination of PW-3, it was the defence of accused that it is PW- 3 who had hit against the bench of the accused while he was sitting and it led to the quarrel. The gunshot's were fired by Sumit and his friends upon the accused who somehow escaped and it hit against one of his fellow employees at Toll tax. But the accused while giving his statment u/s 313 Cr. PC took a somersault and pleaded a completely new defence that there was one kalandra registered at PS Bawana against him as well as said Sumit. The same was disposed off but said Sumit was having enmity against him due to the said kalandra. Due to said enmity only, he got the present case falsely registered against him. No such defence has been put either to said PW-3 Sumit or IO PW- 23 SI Surender Singh. The said Kalandra too has not been proved on record. Therefore, it has to be observed that the defence pleaded by the accused of gunshot's being fired by said PW-3 and his friends or he being falsely implicated due to some kalandra is a sham defence only.