NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has upheld the five-year jail term awarded to a man for attempting to murder his wife and mother-in-law by hitting them with an axe after he returned home intoxicated.
Justice Mukta Gupta, who dismissed the man's appeal against his conviction in the case under section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code, said that considering the nature of the weapon used, the nature of injuries and the evidence of the two injured victims, the prosecution proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
The judge observed that one of the victims was hit on a vital part of her body, face, and therefore the intention of the appellant to commit murder was evident.
Justice Gupta added that there was no case for interference with the conviction of the appellant and also refused to reduce the sentence of five years of rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by him.
"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," the court said in the recent order.
"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," it added.
As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant lived with his wife and the mother-in-law at their house and one evening he came home intoxicated, went to the kitchen, took the axe and hit the victims, resulting in grievous injury to the mother-in-law and simple injury to the wife.
The appellant contended that in spite of the prosecution's claim that there were several eye-witnesses, none were examined and there are material contradictions in the testimony of the two injured victims.
It was also claimed that there was no medical report to show whether the appellant was under the influence of alcohol.
The appellant argued that he should either be acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC or in the alternative be released on the period already undergone which is more than half the sentence awarded -- 2 years 10 months including remissions.
Before the trial court, the appellant had claimed that no such incident had taken place and when he came home on the evening of the incident, his wife and mother-in-law had already been taken to the hospital and he came to know about the incident from public persons who gathered near the house.
The prosecution opposed the acquittal of the appellate before the high court, saying that the injured witnesses' evidence could not be brushed aside and the appellant's plea of alibi was not proved.