Reliability of witness testimony and corroboration with medical evidence in determining the nature of the offence under the Indian Penal Code.

A.B. Chaudhari, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30-11-2002 in Sessions Case No. 90/1996 passed by the learned 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, the present Appeal was filed by the appellant.

2. In support of the Appeal, Shri N.R. Saboo, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the evidence of PW 1-Laxman, the complainant, is totally unbelievable and untrustworthy and should have been rejected at the threshold by the learned Sessions Court. According to him, the solitary testimony of PW 1-Laxman could not have been relied on for basing the conviction for offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He then submitted that the medical evidence is contrary to the ocular testimony of PW 1-Laxman and, therefore, an order of acquittal should have been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. He further submitted that the offence punishable under section 307, Indian Penal Code is not at all proved by the prosecution which, at the most could be of a lesser gravity. He lastly submitted that the offence in question allegedly took place in the year 1996 and, therefore, the appellant now need not be sent to jail, that too after efflux of so many years.

3. Per contra, Ms. N.P. Mehta, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the Appeal tooth and nail and supported the impugned judgment and order. She submitted that the learned Sessions Court did not commit any mistake in believing the solitary testimony of PW 1-Laxman, particularly when the testimony is trustworthy and no infirmity whatsoever could be found. There is no law that solitary testimony cannot be believed by the Courts of law. She then submitted that giving electric current in a lonely field in the midnight, when the complainant was sleeping, could have certainly proved to be dangerous and detrimental to the life of the complainant, and as such, the conviction is legal, correct and proper. She ultimately prayed for dismissal of the Appeal, since the offence has been proved to the hilt.

4. I have perused the impugned judgment and order made by the Sessions Court and the evidence of PW 1-Laxman, so also his cross-examination and I find no infirmity whatsoever in his evidence. The submission made by Mr. Saboo that there is inconsistency between the oral evidence and medical evidence inasmuch as Laxman stated in his cross-examination that the injury was at his right leg. The fact of receiving burn injury on his right leg by an electric current is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Insofar as the midnight incident is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that there was enmity between the appellant and the complainant, over the bullocks, and that is the reason why the appellant wanted to teach a lesson to the complainant and, therefore, chose the time of midnight, with live wire in his hands, gave a shock on the right leg, while Laxman was sleeping. The submission that in the midnight the appellant could not be identified must fall to the ground for the simple reason that enmity between them was the reason and both of them hails from the same place, knowing each other fully. The other witnesses were not examined from the same village in order to verify the truthfulness of the incident again does not appeal to me. The reason is that in the midnight the Court cannot expect the villagers to come to the rescue of PW 1-Laxman and see the appellant ran away from the spot of the incident. Thus, the testimony of PW 1 which is otherwise trustworthy, has rightly been believed by the learned Sessions Judge. In that view of the matter, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of acquittal should been recorded must be rejected out-rightly.

5. The next question is what offence is proved b