Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Delhi Offence of attempt to murder is a serious offence, in proving its commission; prosecution is required to prove basic ingredients of murder short of death MANU/DE/2209/2019 - (15 Jul 2019) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Ramveer Vs. State</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">By the instant Regular Appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the Appellant assails the judgment where-under, the Appellant has come to be convicted for the commission of the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) 
The Appellant submits that, the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. To support such plea, it comes to be contended that while the prosecution had failed to examine any independent witness, the depositions of the prosecution witnesses were contradictory and the prosecution had failed to establish the case with which it approached the Court. 
Motive for assault by the Appellant-that has come to be proved on record-is in consonance with the prosecution story and well established. Findings of the Trial Court that, the assailant was the Appellant and the weapon of offence used was the knife thus cannot be faulted with. Any contention raised to the contrary is therefore rejected. 
Offence of attempt to murder is a serious offence, in proving commission of such an offence, prosecution is required to prove basic ingredients of murder short of death. There is also nothing on record to suggest that, the injured suffered any fracture or dislocation of a bone. Nothing emerges from the record that, the injured PW 8 remained in severe bodily pain or was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits and therefore, the injury could be termed to be grievous hurt as defined under Section 320 of IPC. The prosecution had miserably failed to prove that, the injury suffered by the injured PW 8 was grievous and therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court to that effect was not sustainable. 
Commission of the offence under Section 324 IPC invites punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Incident has occurred at the spur of the moment. It emerges from the record that, the Appellant was beyond 21 years of age at the time of occurrence of the incident and has undergone incarceration for more than three months besides facing trial since the year 2002. Appellant deserves to be released on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment. The impugned judgment of conviction under Section 307 of IPC is modified to Section 324 of IPC and the impugned order on sentence is set aside.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Conviction, Injury, Nature</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>