New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has upheld the term five-year prison given to a man because he tried to kill his wife and mother-in-law by hitting them with ax after he returned to the house drunk.
Justice Mukta Gupta, who refused the man’s appeal to his belief in the case below Section 307 (trying to murder) from Indian Criminal Code, said that remembering the nature of the weapons used, the injury and evidence of two injured.
The victim, prosecution proved his case against the applicant without a doubt.
The judge observed that one of the victims was hit on his vital body, face, and therefore the applicant’s intention to commit proven killings.
Gupta justice added that there was no case to intervene with the belief in the applicant and also refused to reduce a strict five-year prison sentence for the period that had been experienced by him.
“Given the nature of the weapons used, that the injury was caused by an important part of the body and evidence of the two victims who injured this court found that prosecution had proven without a doubt that the applicant had committed to the part 307 IPC,” said the court in the recent order .
“Regarding the punishment, the applicant has been awarded a strict 5-year prison and remembers the injury caused by a painful injury to Anita on the cheek with ax, this court also did not find it suitable to release the applicant.
In the period it has experienced,” he added.
As per the case of prosecution, the applicant lives with his wife and mother-in-law in their home and one night he comes to a drunk house, goes to the kitchen, takes ax and hit the victim, leads to a sad injury to the mother-in-law and a simple injury to his wife.
Applicants argue that despite the prosecution claims that there were several eyewitnesses, no one was examined and there was a matter of material contradictions in the testimony of two injured victims.
It is also claimed that there are no medical reports to show whether the applicant is under the influence of alcohol.
The applicant believes that he must be released from the cost below the 307 IPC section or in an alternative released in a period that has experienced more than half of the given sentences – 2 years 10 months including remission.
Before the trial court, the applicant had claimed that there was no such incident and when he returned home at night, his wife and mother-in-law had been taken to the hospital and he knew about the incident from public people gathering near the house.
The prosecution against the release of Appellate before the High Court, said that evidence of injured witnesses could not be removed and the Appellant’s alibi application was not proven.