7-yr jail for 6 for attacking PAU staffer over dowry plaint

Ludhiana: A local court has sentenced six men to seven years of rigorous imprisonment each for attempting to murder the father-in-law of one of them with sharp-edged weapons. The attack was allegedly carried out because the victim's daughter had filed dowry demand and domestic violence cases against her husband. The court of additional sessions judge Harvinder Singh also imposed fines—Rs 11,500 on Surjit Thakur and Rs 12,000 each on the other five convicts.The convicts include Surjit Thakur (40), Hunardeep Singh (29), Daljeet Singh (34), Raghav Chandok (30), Charanjeet Singh (29), and Sunny Sharma (31), all residents of Haibowal Khurd. Initially, PAU police booked them on October 10, 2015, under IPC sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 341 (wrongful restraint), 506 (criminal intimidation), 148 (rioting), and 149 (unlawful assembly). Later, Section 307 (attempt to murder) was added.
According to the prosecution, complainant Subhash Chand, an attendant at MS Randhawa Library, PAU, stated that on October 5, 2015, around 5:05 pm, he was heading to PAU Remote Centre on his scooter to pick up his wife, a senior stenographer. When he reached Dargah Road near Sunet Shah Bali, his son-in-law Surjit Thakur and five companions intercepted him. Surjit, armed with a sharp-edged weapon, allegedly told his companions to attack him. Surjit attacked first, causing Subhash to fall. Three others hit him with sickles and knives on his left leg and knee, while Surjit urged them to break his legs. The group then kicked and punched him, leaving him bleeding profusely. Believing him dead, they fled.Two PRSC employees, Gurcharan Singh and Hoshiar Singh, found Subhash and rushed him to PAU hospital. Due to his critical condition, he was referred to DMC Hospital. The attack was allegedly intended to pressure Subhash's family to withdraw the dowry and domestic violence cases filed by his daughter against Surjit and his family.Police registered a case, arrested the accused, and filed a chargesheet. During trial, the accused claimed innocence and false implication. However, the court rejected their defence, observing, "It is an admitted fact that the accused neither moved any complaint nor appeared before any higher police authority after the occurrence regarding his false implication. Had the accused been innocent, they would have raised a hue and cry against his false implication. No plausible explanation or justification is forthcoming."The judgment concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to conviction and sentencing of all the six accused.