Two men have been sentenced to seven years in jail for trying to kill a person following a quarrel over alcohol, by a Delhi court which said the mode and manner of the crime was detrimental to societal peace.
Additional Sessions Judge Pankaj Gupta handed down the jail term to Delhi residents Rahul Thakur and Karnail Singh for stabbing the victim, Vishal, in a drunken condition after he refused to give them more alcohol.
“The aggravating circumstances are that the convicts (Rahul and Karnail) had committed the offence by causing injuries on the vital parts of the complainant at a public place in night time. The mode and manner of the crime was detrimental to the societal peace,” the judge said while also imposing a fine of Rs 10,000 on each of them.
The court while holding them guilty under section 307 (attempt to murder) read with 34 (common intention) of IPC, also noted that while committing the act, they knew that it was imminently dangerous and in all probability could cause death or such bodily injuries that were likely to cause death.
It relied on the victim’s testimony and his medical report saying, “Vishal is the victim as well as the eye witness to the incident and accused have failed to shake his credibility,” and the injury caused to him was “dangerous in nature”.
The court also observed that motive is only a piece of evidence to corroborate prosecution case and even if it is presumed that there was absence of motive, “even then the prosecution has successfully proved the case against accused”.
According to the prosecution, on November 6, 2012, Vishal was sitting in office in Pitampura area here when Rahul and Karnail came in a drunken state and asked for more alcohol.
When Vishal refused and asked them to leave, they dragged him out of office and injured him with a knife on his neck and nose and fled from the spot, it said, adding that he was taken to a hospital by people nearby who heard his scream.
The duo were arrested and chargesheeted for the offence of attempt to murder.
During the trial, they pleaded innocence and said that it was a case of mistaken identity, claiming that they were not present at the scene of the crime.