A conviction for attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC is valid if the act is dangerous and intent is inferred from the weapon and injury, whereas charges for dowry harassment and destruction of evidence require specific evidence that cannot be satisfied by vague, uncorroborated testimony.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the above captioned appeals, this court heard them together and same are now being disposed of vide common judgment.

Afore appeals filed under Section 374 of CrPC, lay challenge to judgment dated 4.1.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Mandi, Himachal Pradesh (Camp at Karsog) in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2004, whereby appellant/accused (herein after “accused”) came to be convicted and sentenced as per description given herein below:

Besides above, learned court below awarded sum of Rs. 30,000/- to Monika (vicim/injured) and Rs. 20,000/- to Dharma Devi (victim/injured), as compensation.

In nutshell, case of the prosecution as emerge from the record is that FIR (Ext.PW1/A), came to be lodged at the behest of PW1 Hem Raj, who alleged that on 14.10.2003 at about 5:30pm, while he was ploughing his fields with his mother Jasmati Devi, he after having heard some noise, talked to one Lej Ram on his telephone. Lej Ram told PW1 Hem Raj that accused Duni Chand has caused injuries to PW9 Dharma Devi and PW14 Monika. Complainant alleged that he along with his mother went towards the house of PW14 Monika, where she was found in injured condition. Complainant further alleged that PW14 Monika had suffered deep cut on her arms and neck and her clothes were also stained with blood. He also alleged that PW9 Dharma Devi also suffered injuries on her forehead, face and body and persons namely Lej Ram, Kewal Krishan and PW3 Pooja were also present there. He alleged that accused Duni Chand, who was tied to a pillar in a verandah, was proclaiming that he has committed a mistake. In the afore background, above named injured were taken to hospital and on the basis of statement made by PW1 Hem Raj under Section 154 CrPC, FIR Ext.PW1/A was registered in the Police Station.

PW22-SI Vijay Sen conducted investigation and after completion of the same, presented challan in the competent court of law, which, being satisfied that prima-facie case is made out against the accused, proceeded to frame charges under Sections 307, 498-A and 201 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as 28 witnesses, whereas accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 CrPC, denied case of the prosecution in toto and claimed themselves to be innocent. They also produced one evidence in defence i.e. DW1 Pyare Lal, in their defence.

Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment dated 4.1.2010 held the accused guilty of having committed offences under afore provisions of law and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as per the description given herein above. In the aforesaid background, present appellants/accused have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein their acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi.

Precisely, the grouse of the appellants as has been highlighted in both the appeals and further canvassed by Mr.N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Ms. Kanika Verma, Advocate, is that learned Additional Sessions Judge while ascertaining guilt, if any, of t