-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
On 11 April 2023, Supreme Court in a recent judgement (PANCHRAM Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.) observed that the incident occurred 23/24 years ago, and that the complainant admitted to having inappropriate relations with the appellant's wife. The weapon used was scissors, not a typical weapon to cause death, and the appellant worked as a tailor. The injury report showed minor injuries.
The accused appeals his conviction and sentence from the High Court's judgment (11.10.2018) that upheld the Trial Court's decision (30.05.2000). The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Sections 341, 506, and 307 IPC. The prosecution's case is based on an incident on 04.05.1999, where the appellant allegedly attacked the complainant with scissors, suspecting an illicit relationship with his wife.
The appellant's counsel argued that it was a sudden fight without intention to cause injuries. The complainant admitted to having an "evil eye" on the appellant's wife. The defense also referred to a compromise deed dated 30.04.2019. However, the State's counsel argues that the appellant used a sharp-edged weapon on a vital body part, justifying the conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC.
The Supreme Court observed that the incident occurred 23/24 years ago and that the complainant admitted to having inappropriate relations with the appellant's wife. The weapon used was scissors, not a typical weapon to cause death, and the appellant worked as a tailor. The injury report showed minor injuries.
The Court noted that several witnesses were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution's version. Considering the evidence, the weapon used, and the lack of pre-planning, the Court concluded that the offense did not fall within Section 307 IPC but rather Section 326 IPC. The Court held that the injuries were not inflicted with an intention to cause death, and the conviction under Section 307 IPC could not be sustained. However, the convictions under Sections 341 and 506B IPC were sustained.
The Court pointed out that the appellant had already served 11 months and 24 days of imprisonment. Given the time elapsed since the incident, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already served. The fine amount was sustained, with a one-month imprisonment term in case of non-payment.
The Supreme Court modified the impugned judgments of the lower courts and allowed the appeal.
PANCHRAM Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.
[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/11-Apr-2023-PANCHRAM-Vs-State.pdf"]
