RAHUL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convicted for offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, Rahul challenges the impugned judgment dated 7th January, 2017 and the order on sentence dated 12th January, 2017 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.

(2.) Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive behind the alleged offence. Despite public persons being present at the spot when the appellant was allegedly arrested, nobody was associated. Further no independent witness was also joined when the alleged disclosure statement of the appellant was recorded. In any case, even accepting the case of the prosecution, there was no pre-meditation and incident took place on the spur of the moment. Thus, offence punishable under Section 326 IPC is not made out. The appellant is not habitual offender. He be thus released on the period already undergone.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that in view of the statement of the injured, medical opinion and the knife injury inflicted on the vital part of the injured i.e. the neck, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Rahul committed the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. The sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment awarded is not required to be reduced any further. Hence the appeal be dismissed.