The Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction of a 35-year-old businessman for stabbing a girl, who had rejected his proposal for marriage, saying that the five-years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed on him was not “too harsh” as pleaded by him.
According to Justice R C Chavan, “Considering the genesis of the incident and the manner in which the appellant had inflicted multiple incised wounds on the victim, it cannot be said the sentence imposed on him by the trial Judge is excessively harsh. Therefore, it does not call for any interference.”
Vijay Chavan, a resident of suburban Andheri, was found guilty of attempt to murder by the trial court. He ran a mobile telephone shop. The victim was working in his shop. He was attracted to her and proposed to her but she refused.
According to prosecution, it was an one-sided love. After some time, the victim left the job and took up another one at the airport. She was mostly on night duty. On March 25, 2009, when she was returning from work, the accused confronted her at her building’s staircase. As she refused to talk to him, he got enraged and stabbed the victim with a sharp weapon.
The victim suffered multiple injuries and was shifted to a hospital nearby while the appellant ran away. During the trial, he pleaded not guilty and the prosecution examined six witnesses. He was convicted for offence of attempt to murder.
The appellant took the defence that they had an affair with the girl and both were in love. He further pleaded that on the day of the incident when she was talking to him, some unknown persons snatched her purse and while she was trying to save herself she got injured on neck and abdomen.
However, the high court disbelieved his version saying in that case he should have been the first person to take the victim to the hospital and also try to catch the persons who had snatched her purse or go to police to report about it.
“Though the counsel for the appellant sought to suggest that the appellant was not involved in the attack, there would be obviously no reason for the victim to state about the complicity of the appellant if, according to the appellant, the victim was in love with him and if the appellant was only having an innocent chat with the victim,” observed the Judge while dismissing his appeal.