Free Judgments

Gain Chand @ Rahul vs The State Govt. Of Nct, Delhi on 12 January, 2022

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

1. By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the impugned
judgment dated 7th March, 2020 whereby the appellant has been convicted
for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and the order on sentence
dated 13th August, 2020 whereby he has been 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.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that 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 mother-
in-law and the wife resulting in grievous injury to the mother-in-law and

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE
CRL.A. 38/2021 Page GUPTA
MUKTA 1 of 9
Signing Date:12.01.2022
20:43:07
simple injury to the wife. The Doctor who wrote the MLC was not
examined and hence in view of the decision of this Court reported as (2019)
SCConline Del 9129 Ramveer Vs. State grievous injury cannot be said to be
proved. It is 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, case of the two injured victims is that the 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.
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.
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 eye-
witness 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.

Source: Indian Kanoon

juris

Leave a Reply