The judgment establishes the principle that the nature of the weapon used, the manner in which it is used, and the intention of the accused are crucial in determining the offense under Section 307 IPC.

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. These are two connected appeals, one by Rakesh (hereafter referred to as ‘the accused’) and the other by Nemwati (hereafter ‘the victim’). The accused challenges the judgment dated 16th May 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North West (hereafter ‘the trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 50/2014 arising out of FIR No. 151/2014 registered at Police Station (‘PS’) Sultan Puri convicting him for the offences under Sections 326 and 342 IPC as well as the order on sentence dated 19th May 2015 whereby for the offence under Section 326 IPC, he was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment (‘RI’) for five years along with fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for one month whereas for the offence under Section 342 IPC he was sentenced to SI for one year along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment to undergo SI for one week. The accused was also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the victim under Section 357A Cr PC.

2. As far as the victim is concerned, she questions the impugned judgment in so far as the trial Court has acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 307 IPC and converted that offence into one under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him accordingly.

Charge

3. The charge against the accused as framed by the trial Court by the order dated 3rd July 2014 was that on the intervening night of 8th/9th February 2014 at 1 am at Jhuggi No. 260, near Bhalla Factory, HIG Labour Colony, Sultan Puri, he attacked his wife, the victim, with a kitchen knife causing grievous injuries to her nose, cheek and behind the ear; he also hit her head with a “Sil batta (piece of stone used for grinding)” as a result of which she fell unconscious; he then left her in the jhuggi and locked it from outside. He was charged with committing the offence of attempt to murder punishable under Section 307 IPC and wrongfully confining the victim in the jhuggi thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 342 IPC.

Background facts

4. The accused and the victim were married on 19th June 2007. They have a son. Soon after the wedding, quarrels started between the couple. It appears that the accused was a widower at the time of his marriage to the victim. There were two-three complaints filed by the victim against the accused as regards her being beaten up by him. On his part the accused filed a case against the victim in the Rohini Courts seeking divorce. The victim filed a petition seeking restitution of the conjugal rights and also a separate case seeking maintenance for the son residing with her who was born out of the wedlock with the accused.

5. About two years prior to the incident, the victim had left the matrimonial home and started staying with her father at Mundka. At around 7 pm on 8th February 2014 the accused went to the house of the victim’s father and after taking tea and snacks, informed Smt. Tara Wati (PW-4), mother of the victim, that he wanted to take the victim with him for the purposes of getting her medicines as she was unwell at the time. The victim left with the accused at around 8.30 pm, leaving their son behind with PW-4.

6. In response to PW-4’s doubts about the victim accompanying the accused despite the pending court cases filed by them against each other, the accused assured PW-4 that he would take her to the court and subsequently get all matters between him and the victim settled.

7. Instead of taking the victim to buy medicines, the accused on the way informed the victim that he would take her to his jhuggi first and then take her for medicines later. He took her to his jhuggi near Bhalla Factory. The victim, having been assured by the accused that they should compromise their disputes and should start residing together, agreed to stay with the accused in his jhuggi on that night. According to her, since their son was five years old and in the interest of the child’s future and her own future, she decided to st