New Delhi: Three men, who were held guilty of trying to kill a person by stabbing him 11 times, have been sentenced to five years rigorous jail term by a Delhi court which said adequate punishment needs to be inflicted, else wrong signal will be sent in the society.
Additional Sessions Judge Dig Vinay Singh handed down the jail term to convicts -- Satish, Sonu and Sanjay -- for the offences of attempt to murder with common intention punishable under sections 307 and 34 of the IPC.
"In the present case, as many as 11 injuries were inflicted upon the injured with knives. Adequate punishment needs to be inflicted, else it will send wrong signals in the society.
"The three convicts are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs 25,000 each," the judge said.
Apart from them, there two more accused in the case out of whom one was declared a proclaimed offender during pendency of trial while the other was a juvenile being tried at a Juvenile Justice Board.
The court, while convicting the three, said, "The number of injuries inflicted upon the victim's body and the kind of deadly weapon selected to inflict injuries upon him... injuries threatening his life, clearly indicates that they had gone with prior preparation intending to kill him.
"They inflicted repeated blows after immobilising him (victim), when he was caught by two of them and assaulted by the other three. These facts do indicate that they intended to kill the victim and thereby offence for which they are guilty is section 307/34 of IPC."
According to the prosecution, on April 12, 2007, victim Lakhan Singh was taking a walk near house in Raghuvir Nagar here, when Sonu and his associate, whom Singh knew, came and caught hold of him, after which three more persons -- Satish, Ishwar and Sanjay -- came and started stabbing him with a knife on his head, hands, leg and abdomen.
All them were arrested a few days later but Ishwar was declared a proclaimed offender on September 11, 2014.
The court noted that Singh had supported prosecution in examination-in-chief but turned hostile in cross-examination.
It, however, relied on the examination-in-chief, saying his changing the statement "appears to be a result of influence" and "nothing else".
"In his examination-in-chief, he named all them (convicts) specifically and identified them clearly since they were residing nearby his house...Thus, it is the examination-in- chief which has to be preferred," it said.
During the trial, all the convicts had pleaded innocence and claimed they were falsely implicated in the case.
