IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ritu Bahri, Ashok Kumar Verma, JJ.
Vedender - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRA-D-663-DB-2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-03-2022
U/S 307 IPC - Conviction - [IPC, Arms Act] - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and FSL reports, to establish the accused's guilt. The court also considered previous judgments related to similar offenses and their sentencing to determine the appropriate punishment for the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under U/S 307 of IPC and U/S 25 of Arms Act for shooting the victim, causing grievous injuries. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies and FSL reports to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and FSL reports. The court also considered previous judgments related to similar offenses and their sentencing to determine the appropriate punishment for the accused.
Issues: The main issue was the guilt of the accused in committing the offenses under U/S 307 IPC and U/S 25 of the Arms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and FSL reports, to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also considered previous judgments related to similar offenses and their sentencing to determine the appropriate punishment for the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of the appellant was reduced from life imprisonment to 7 years.
JUDGMENT
Ritu Bahri, J. - The appellant has come up in appeal against the judgment dated 23.05.2016 and decree dated 24.05.2016 whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Offence
Sentence
U/S 307 of IPC
To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
U/S 25 of Arms Act
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-. In default of payment of fine, further undergo simple imprisonment for three months .
2. The case set up by the prosecution is that on 02.12.2013, information was received by SI Mohammad Illias Khan from Police Post, PGIMS, Rohtak that Dr. Ashish Dahiya was admitted in hospital with fire injury. One Mahender Singh Dalal, who was working as Assistant in the Hotel Management Department, M.D.U., Rohtak told the police that Dr. Ashish Dahiya was working as Director in the M.D.U., Rohtak. The Director room and his room were in the same building. On 02.12.2013 at about 10:30 a.m., Dr. Ashish Dahiya called a meeting of the office staff and that meeting lasted till 11 a.m. At about 11:15 a.m., when Dr. Ashish Dahiya was sitting in his office, his ex-student Vedender entered the office and asked for his roll number slip from him. Dr. Ashish Dahiya told him to collect the same from the front office and at that time Mahender Singh Dalal was sitting in his office. He heard a noise that Vedender was telling the Director that he would teach him a lesson for not giving him roll number slip and heard a pistol shot noise. When Mahender Singh Dalal went inside the office of the Director, he saw that Vedender was carrying a pistol in his hand and fired on Dr. Ashish Dahiya with an intention to kill him. When Vedender was loading third round in the pistol, he raised the noise. On hearing the same, 10-15 students and staff employees came at the place of occurrence and Vedender ran away alongwith his pistol from the place of occurrence. His identity card was found lying on the table on the place of occurrence. Mahender Singh Dalal and other employees brought Dr. Ashish Dahiya in PGIMS, Rohtak. Thereafter FIR No. 499 dated 02.12.2013 under Section 307 IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act was registered against Vedender-accused. He was charged for committing offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove its case.
3. The FSL report was tendered by the Public Prosecutor Ex.PC, Ex.PD and Ex.PE. The accused gave his statement and stated that he does not want to answer any question and gave his written submission Ex.DA. The identity card of the accused was effected from the place of occurrence and the recovery of pistol from the accused proved the case set up by the prosecution against the accused.
4. Complainant Mahender Singh Dalal appeared as PW2 and in his testimony, he stated that at the time of occurrence, he was standing with Dr. Anup near the inner door leading to the room of Dr. Ashish Dahiya. He also stated that distance between the door of his room and the inner door of Dr. Ashish Dahiya was 10 ft. He tried to apprehend the accused but when accused aimed pistol on him, he did not apprehend him out of fear. The presence of Mahender Singh Dalal was established by the testimonies of Dr. Ashish Dahiya (PW1) and Dr. Goldy Puri (PW6). Mahender Singh Dalal was also present in the hospital at the time of medico legally examination of Dr. Ashish Dahiya, which further established his presence at the place of occurrence. He had told the name of Vedender to the police and had done his duty. Place of occurrence was verified by the police and, thereafter, site plan (Ex.PK) was prepared on 23.03.2014 by Head Constable Sant Kumar.
5. The injuries sustained by Dr. Ashish Dahiya was duly brought on record with the help of testimonies of Dr. Sandeep (PW-4) and Dr. Mayank (PW- 12).
6. Dr. Goldy Puri (PW6), the eye witness of the occurrence in his testimony state
Ravinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana
Sevaka Pereumal and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence, including witness testimonies and FSL reports, to establish the guilt of the accused and the consideration of previous ju....
The court modified the punishment under Section 326 I.P.C. and Section 307 I.P.C. based on the nature of injuries and the weapon used.
The consistent testimony of witnesses and corroborating medical evidence can establish guilt, and non-recovery of the weapon used in the incident may not diminish the credibility of the witnesses.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of intention or knowledge in determining the nature of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C., and the court's emphasis on the la....
Specific charges must be framed in criminal proceedings; vague charges can prejudice the accused, leading to unsustainable convictions.
The consistent and trustworthy testimonies of eyewitnesses, supported by medical evidence, are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case.
Attempt to murder – Intention to kill must be apparent from act of accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible evidence, including witness testimonies, confession of guilt, recovery of the crime weapon, and forensic report, to uphold....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.