High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition challenges the impugned judgment whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and the order on sentence whereby he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years.
Brief Facts:
Wife of the appellant Madhu stated that after 3 days of the marriage the appellant and the complainant started living in her parental house. Appellant was addicted to alcohol and used to quarrel with her often due to which she had filed cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Maintenance and Divorce against him, which were pending. One day the wife of the appellant asked the appellant as to why he was not doing any work or earning the livelihood, the appellant started abusing her and left the house. The appellant came back under the influence of liquor when her mother Smt. Anita requested the appellant to do some work for earning the livelihood and to bear the family expenses, the appellant got angry and started abusing her mother and threatened, as both of them insisted the appellant to work and created trouble for him. The appellant went to the kitchen, brought one axe. Thereafter, the appellant hit the complainant on neck with the axe but the blow fell on her head. When her mother tried to intervene to save the complainant, appellant hit on the neck of her mother with the axe which blow hit the cheek of the mother. Her mother fell down and the complainant started crying and screaming when her cousin brother Rakesh and brother Raj Kumar came and on seeing them the appellant ran away from the spot leaving the axe behind.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that despite the case of the prosecution being that several eye-witnesses were present, no eye-witness was examined. It was contended that MLC of the appellant has not been placed on record which would prove whether the appellant was under the influence of alcohol or not. Further, there are material contradictions in the testimony of the two injured victims. It was also argued that one of the two eye-witnesses examined is the brother of the appellant’s wife who stated that he received a call at his office, hence he is not an eyewitness to the incident. In view of the material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses, the appellant be acquitted of the charge for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC or in the alternative be released on the period already undergone which is more than half the sentence awarded.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned APP for the State submitted that wife and her mother are the injured witnesses and hence their evidence stands on a higher pedestal and cannot be brushed aside. Cousin Brother and brother took the two injured victims to the hospital and hence their presence at the spot cannot be doubted. It was submitted that the plea of alibi taken by the appellant was not proved by him. Even if no grouping could be ascertained blood was found on the axe which also corroborates the version of the injured victims. In view of the serious offence committed by the appellant no case for acquittal or for reduction of sentence is made out.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that it is trite law that for conviction for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary that the victim should suffer an injury and, in a case, where the offence is committed with an intention to commit the murder of the victim, Section 307 IPC would be attracted as in the case of firing when no resultant injury is suffered by the victim. Court observed that the appellant has used the axe with which he inflicted injury on the victim Anita on the vital part of the body i.e., the face. Court stated that considering the weapon of offence and the vital part of the body where injury is inflicted, the intention of the appellant to commit murder is evident.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “Considering the nature of weapon used, that the injuries were inflicted on vital part of the body and the evidence of the two injured victims this Court finds that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Hence no case is made out for interference with the impugned judgment of conviction. As regards the sentence, the appellant has been awarded 5 years rigorous imprisonment and in view of the nature of injuries caused including grievous injury to Anita on cheek with axe, this Court also does not find it to be a fit case to release the appellant on the period already undergone.”
Bench: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta
Case Title: Gain Chand @ Rahul v. The State Govt. Of NCT, Delhi
Case Details: CRL.A. 38/2021
Picture Source :
