The central legal point established in the judgment is that for conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not necessary for the victim to suffer an injury, and the intention to commit murder is sufficient to attract Section 307 IPC.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. - 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 Rs. 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 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) SCC online 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 eyewitness 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.

3. Learned APP for the State submits that PW-2 and PW-3 are the injured witnesses and hence their evidence stands on a higher pedestal and cannot be brushed aside. PW-4 and PW-6 took the two injured victims to the hospital and hence their presence at the spot cannot be doubted. The plea of alibi taken by the appellant was not proved by him. The quarrel took place as the temple was to be vacated. Even if no grouping could be ascertained blood was found on the axe which also corroborates the version of the injured victims. In view of the serious offence committed by the appellant no case for acquittal or for reduction of sentence is made out.

4. FIR No. 527/2014 under Section 307 IPC was registered at PS Jahangir Puri on the complaint of Madhu @ Jyoti the wife of the appellant who was examined before the Court as PW-2. In the FIR and in her deposition before the Court, Madhu stated that she was married to the appellant on 28th November, 2011 and out of the said wedlock a girl child was born. After 3 days of the marriage the appellant and the complainant started living in her parental house. Appellant was addicted to alcohol and used to quarrel with her often due to which she had filed cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Maintenance and Divorce against him, which were pending. On 4th July, 2014 she and her mother Smt. Anita who has been examined as PW-3 came back from Allahabad, U.P. to Delhi after visiting her ailing maternal grand-mother who was admitted in ICU at Allahabad. When they reached, the appellant was not at home and came at about 1.30 - 2.00 PM. When PW-2 asked the appellant as to why he was not doing any work or earning the livelihood, the appellant started abusing her and left the house after 10 minutes. At about 3.30 PM the appellant came back unde