A Delhi court has convicted a man for attempting to murder his wife by shooting her in the stomach outside a hospital in Connaught Place nearly eight years after the incident. Additional Sessions Judge Dhirendra Rana, in a judgment dated October 13, held the accused, identified as Sushant, guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempt to murder and under Section 27 of the Arms Act for the use of a firearm. The court described the testimony of the injured woman as credible, trustworthy and sufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The incident occurred on November 24, 2018, outside Gate No. 5 of Kalawati Hospital in Connaught Place. The victim, Pinki, worked as a security guard at the hospital. She had been living at her parental home since 2015, after her husband was sent to jail in a separate case. According to the prosecution, Sushant approached her on the day of the incident. As she sat in an auto-rickshaw he had parked across the road, he asked whether she would return to her matrimonial home. When she refused, he fired a shot that struck her in the stomach and then fled from the scene.
Victim’s Account and Medical Impact
Pinki told the court that she was operated upon the same day. She remained hospitalised for about a month and underwent four surgeries in a short period. The court noted that the injury was inflicted on a vital part of the body. In its observations, the judge stated that the accused fired upon a vital part of the victim’s body and intended to eliminate her because she was not ready to live with him. The prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had attempted to commit the murder of his wife, leading to the conviction under Section 307 of the IPC.
The court found Pinki’s testimony reliable and consistent. It held that her account alone was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. This reliance on the injured witness’s statement formed a central pillar of the judgment.
Supporting Evidence from CCTV and Hospital Staff
Beyond the victim’s testimony, the court considered corroborative material. Evidence from hospital staff, along with CCTV camera footage, established that the accused had come to the hospital and left with the victim shortly before she returned injured. This sequence of events supported the prosecution’s version of how the accused met Pinki at her workplace, engaged her in conversation about returning home, and then carried out the shooting after her refusal.
The combination of the injured woman’s direct account, the medical evidence of multiple surgeries following a gunshot wound to the abdomen, and the independent corroboration from CCTV and staff testimony created a coherent chain that the court found persuasive.
Charges Under the Arms Act
While convicting Sushant under Section 27 of the Arms Act for the use of arms in the commission of the offence, the court acquitted him of the charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act, which relates to the illegal possession of a firearm. It noted that a separate first information report concerning the possession of the pistol had been registered at Seelampur police station. The trial in that case is pending before another court. The distinction drawn by the judge underscores the careful separation of the use of the weapon in the present incident from the broader question of possession, which remains under separate adjudication.
Context of the Matrimonial Dispute
The background of the case centres on a matrimonial dispute. Pinki had been living separately at her parental home for several years after her husband was incarcerated in another matter. The prosecution’s case was that the accused sought her return to the matrimonial home and, upon her refusal, resorted to violence. The court accepted that the shooting was directly linked to her decision not to resume cohabitation. The judgment explicitly connected the act of firing at a vital body part with the intention to eliminate her because of that refusal.
Significance of the Court’s Findings
The judgment highlights the weight that courts can place on the testimony of an injured victim when it is found to be consistent, credible and supported by independent evidence. In cases involving domestic violence that escalates to life-threatening assault, the account of the survivor often forms the core of the prosecution’s case. Here, the court treated Pinki’s testimony as both trustworthy and sufficient, while also drawing support from objective material such as CCTV footage and the statements of hospital staff who observed the sequence of events around the time of the attack.
The medical consequences—immediate surgery, prolonged hospitalisation and multiple subsequent operations—further illustrated the seriousness of the injury. By noting that the shot was directed at a vital organ, the court reinforced its conclusion regarding the accused’s intention.
Next Steps in the Proceedings
With the conviction recorded under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, the matter will proceed to the stage of arguments on the quantum of sentence. The separate proceedings relating to the possession of the firearm continue independently before another court. The present judgment brings to a close the trial concerning the attempt to murder arising from the 2018 shooting outside the hospital where the victim worked.
The case underscores the legal consequences that follow when domestic disagreements escalate into armed violence. The court’s reliance on the injured woman’s testimony, corroborated by electronic and oral evidence from the hospital premises, demonstrates how such material can establish guilt even years after the original incident. The conviction of Sushant for the attempt to murder his wife stands as a judicial determination based on the evidence led by the prosecution and assessed by the trial court.
Read more – Lpainhand.com