In the absence of the doctor who prepared the Medical report and where there is no material on record to show that the injury was grievous in nature. It is trite law that conviction would be for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC. It is also not necessary that the victim should have suffered an injury in a case where the offence was committed with an intention to commit the murder of the victim. These were stated by High Court of Delhi, consisting Justice Mukta Gupta in the case of Gain Chand @Rahul vs. The State Govt. of NCT, Delhi [CRL.A. 38/2021] on 12.01.2022.
The facts of the case are that the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC whereby he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and a fine of ₹10,000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 months. As per the case of prosecution, the appellant was living with his wife and the mother-in-law at their house when an altercation took place. It is alleged that the appellant came back intoxicated, went to the kitchen, took the axe and hit the motherin-law and the wife resulting in grievous injury to the mother-in-law and simple injury to the wife.
The Counsel for the appellant contended that despite the case of the prosecution being that several eye-witnesses were present, no eye-witness was examined. The circumstances in which the appellant was arrested are also shrouded in mystery for the reason that the two injured victims said that appellant ran away from the place of incident immediately after inflicting the injuries, however, as per the arrest memo, the appellant was arrested from his house. It was submitted that MLC of the appellant was not placed on record which would prove whether the appellant was under the influence of alcohol or not. Further it was submitted that there were material contradictions in the testimony of the two injured victims. One of the two eye-witnesses examined was 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, i.e. 2 years 10 months including remissions.
The Counsel for the respondents submitted that PW-2 and PW-3 were the injured witnesses and hence their evidence stands on a higher pedestal and cannot be brushed aside. It was pointed out that PW-4 and PW-6 took the two injured victims to the hospital and hence their presence at the spot cannot be doubted. The Counsel further contended that the plea of alibi taken by the appellant was not proved by him and a quarrel took place as the temple had to be vacated. Even if no grouping could be ascertained, blood was found on the axe which also corroborated the version of the injured victims. It was therefore contended that in view of the serious offence committed by the appellant no case for acquittal or for reduction of sentence can be made out.
The High Court of Delhi held that in the absence of the doctor who prepared the MLC, where there is no material on record to show that the injury was grievous in nature. It is trite law that conviction would be for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. It is not necessary that the victim should have suffered 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. The Court observed that in the present case, the appellant used an axe as the weapon of offence on a vital part of the body, therefore, it can be ascertained that the intention of the appellant was to commit murder. Considering the nature of weapon used, Court held that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, the appellant was awarded 5 years rigorous imprisonment and appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Judgment reviewed by Shristi Suman. Read Judgment