Usha Mehra, J. - (1.)Sh. Bishnu the appellant herein was convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge under Section 307, Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to under go RI for a period of four years and a fine of Rs.1,000.00 , in default three months S.I. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 27 of the Arms Act and a fine of Rs.500.00 , in indefault two months further S.I. He was; of course, given benefit under Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code .
(2.)Mr.P.R.Thakur, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae for the appellant as the appellant is in jail and could not afford a lawyer. Mr.Thakur has assailed the impugned order, inter alia, on the following grounds:-
1. Injured Ms.Pia did not step up in the witness box to corroborate her complaint. Trial Court has convicted the appellant simply on the basis of complainant's statement recorded under Section 161 & 164, Criminal Procedure Code .

2. No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to establish that it was the appellant who inflicted stabbed injury on the person of the complainant.

3. Material contradiction in the story as set up by the prosecution and in the statements of Public Witness -1 & 2.

4. The doctor Public Witness -3 did not describe the nature of the injuries in his report nor gave the depth of the injury.

5. The knife allegedly recovered from the room of the complainant, a foreign tourist, was not sent for chemical analysis no.r finger prints lifted from it. Even the identity of the knife is in doubt.

6. Whether the knife was Buttondar/ Spring actuated or Giraridar etc. has not been established. The Investigating Officer (In short the I.O.) did not give the description of the knife allegedly recovered from the room of the complainant.

7. The appellant was convicted on 8.12.94 and on the same day the order of sentence was passed. It deprived .reasonable opportunity to the appellant.

(3.)To appreciate these points raised by Mr.P.R.Thakur, lets have brief and relevant facts of this case which are necessary to decide these points. As per the story put up by prosecution Ms.Pia was occupying a room in a hotel known as Namaskar at Paharganj. On 2nd Septcmbcr,1993 after making some purchases she came back to the hotal at about 4.00 p.m. In order to take some rest she went to her room., After changing her garments she went to the bed. At that time somebody, somebody knocked at the door. In response to her enquiry the man replied be was the room boy came to check the room. She refused his entry. Again there was a knock at the door which woke her up. She found a sturdy person sitting in her room. She asked him as to how he entered her room and what was be doing in her room. Instead of answering her questions that man stabbed her on her chest. She screemed for help. On hearing her screen one room attendant came-there. That person tried to escape after causing injury on her person. Hotel owner came to her room and took her to Dr.R.M.L. Hospital, where she remained admitted for three days. Her statement was recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code . and thereafter under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code . by the Magistrate. She did not appear in the witness box to corrobrate her complaint, neither identified the appellant nor the knife allegedly used against her.