Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 1157
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
M.S. SONAK, J.
Rajiv @ Raju Gupta & Others - Appellant
Versus
State (through) Public Prosecutor High Court of Bombay at Goa High Court Building Altinho, Panjim & Another - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 53 of 2015, 54 of 2015, 55 of 2015 & 56 of 2015
Decided On : 03-09-2020
For the Appellants :Rohan Pandurang Desai, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S.R. Rivankar, Public Prosecutor/Senior Advocate with Rama Gajanan Rivankar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent witness testimonies, corroborating medical evidence, and the lack of credible alternative theories to support the conviction under Section 307 of IPC.
Headnote:
Section 307 - Assault - IPC - [Section 307 of IPC]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the assault of a co-worker by the accused persons inside a factory premises, resulting in grievous injuries to the victim. The prosecution presented evidence from multiple witnesses and medical reports to support the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of the injured victim and the eye-witnesses to be consistent and credible. The medical evidence corroborated the severity of the head injury suffered by the victim, supporting the charges under Section 307 of IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the witnesses, the severity of the assault, and the intention of the accused persons during the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency of witness testimonies, the severity of the victim's injuries, and the lack of evidence supporting the defense's alternative theories to uphold the conviction under Section 307 of IPC.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the accused persons under Section 307 of IPC, dismissing the appeals.
JUDGMENT :
1. All these appeals are directed against Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2015 made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji sitting at Ponda in Sessions Case No. 59/2013 convicting all the appellants i.e., accused persons of offences under Section 307 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. and sentencing them in terms of the operative portion of the Order.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons, on 15.07.2015 at about 03:30hours inside the factory premises of Kundil Alloys Pvt Ltd., Kundaim Industrial Estate, Ponda-Goa with common intention assaulted one Sitasaran Yadav with an iron rod on his head and further assaulted him with dandas, kicks and fist blows dtd. 03.09.2020 and attempted to kill him thereby causing grievous injuries to his head and other parts of his body. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the course of the evidence laid on record was that the accused persons and the victim were co-workers and the incident took place with some ingots fell to the floor where the accused persons were working and the accused persons felt that the victim Yadav was responsible for the falling of such ingots, which might have hurt the accused persons. The prosecution also tried to make out a case that there were some previous quarrels between the accused persons and the victim.
3. The prosecution, in this case, has examined, no less than 17 witnesses including, the victim himself. Besides the victim, the prosecution has examined at least 4 eye-witnesses to the incident. Upon conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC were recorded. Since, no defence evidence was led on behalf of the accused persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, upon hearing the arguments has made the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the present appeal.
4. Mr. Rohan Desai, the learned counsel for the accused persons submits that the testimony of the alleged victim, who was examined as PW-11 is not credit-worthy and the same ought to have been rejected. He submits that PW-11 spoke of injuries over various parts of his body, other than the head injury. However, the medical evidence on record does not establish injuries on any other part of the victim's body. This, according to him, renders the testimony of PW- 11 is totally unreliable and uncreditworthy. He points out that there are contradiction and omissions in the evidence of PW-11 and this is also a good ground to reject the testimony of PW-11.
5. Mr. Desai also points out that the testimony of PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6 who were alleged to be eye witnesses is also not quite consistent and therefore ought not have been relied upon for convicting the accused persons. He submits that there are inconsistencies inter se between the testimonies of the eye-witnesses. He submits that there are contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of these witnesses which have been duly marked and never explained by the Investigating Officer.
6. Mr. Desai submits that the genesis of the allegation is the complaints made by the accused persons against the Labour Contractor, who was due and payable an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused persons. He submits that it is at the behest of this Labour Contractor that the whole incident was cooked up and the accused persons were framed.
7. Mr. Desai submits that the witnesses deposed to a particular place near the Security cabin where the incident is alleged to have taken place. However, scene of the offence Panchanama indicates a different place. He submits that this is a serious flaw in the prosecution case, which entitles the accused persons to an acquital.
8. Finally, without prejudice to the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Desai submits that the evidence on the record, at the highest, makes out a case under Section 335 of IPC and not of 307 of the IPC. He points out that the ingots fell quite close to the accused persons when the victim was handling the same from some height. He submits t
