Back
CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
RADHE SHYAM SHARMA, J.
Manoj Kumar Mishra
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh.
Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2004
Decided On : 06/12/2012
Section 307 - Attempt to murder - Indian Penal Code - [Section 307] - The court discussed the evidence of a single witness and its reliability in convicting the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also considered the nature of injuries, the intention of the accused, and the severity of the assault in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting the victim with a weapon, causing multiple injuries. The prosecution's case was based on the evidence of the injured victim and medical reports.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the injured victim to be reliable and corroborated by medical evidence, leading to the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the evidence of a single witness, the nature of injuries, and the intention of the accused in committing the assault.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles established in previous judgments to assess the reliability of the evidence of a single witness and the severity of the assault in determining the applicability of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
This appeal is directed against judgment dated 24-2-2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya in Sessions Trial No. 318/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:”
On 14-5-2001, at about 10:00 p.m., appellant Manoj Kumar Mishra was selling liquor near Shiv Temple at Chirmiri. Injured Munnalal (PW-2), Iliyas (PW-3), Dinu Dewangan (PW-4) and one Sudhir Sharma went to the appellant and forbade the appellant from selling the liquor. The appellant started abusing Munnalal (PW-2) in filthy language, went inside his house, brought farsa and assaulted Munnalal (PW-2) with it. The appellant gave farsa blow on head, right shoulder, left hand and right hand of Munnalal (PW-2). Iliyas (PW-3), Dinu Dewangan (PW-4) and Sudhir Sharma intervened and saved Munnalal (PW-2). Munnalal (PW-2) lodged First Information Report (Ex. P-2) in Police Station Chirmiri. Munnalal (PW-2) was sent to Community Health Centre, Chirmiri for medical examination. Dr. A. K. Agrawal (PW-1) examined Munnalal (PW-2) and gave his report (Ex. P-1), in which, he found-
(i) incised wound, 5x0.6c.m. into bone deep on right parieto and temporal region of scalp.
(ii) incised wound, 4x0.5c.m. into bone deep on occipital region of scalp.
(iii) incised wound, 2x0.3c.m. into bone deep on left wrist,
(iv) incised wound, 1x0.2c.m. into skin deep on left thumb base,
(v) incised wound, 1x0.1c.m. into skin deep on left index finger,
(vi) incised wound 1x01.c.m. into skin deep on left middle finger,
(vii) incised wound, 1.5x0.2c.m. into skin deep on middle part of left ring finger,
(viii) incised wound, 1x0.2c.m. into skin deep on right shoulder joint,
(ix) incised wound, 1x0.2c.m. into skin deep on right shoulder.
He advised for x-ray.
In further investigation, plain soil and blood stained soil were seized from the place of occurrence vide Ex. P-5. Full pant of injured Munnalal (PW-2) was also seized vide Ex. P-3. Patwari B. R. Jaiswal prepared site map (Ex. P-4). Investigating Officer also prepared site map (Ex. P-7).
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Surguja, from where, it was received on transfer by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, who, conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
3. Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that evidence of Munnalal (PW-2) is full of contradictions. Iliyas (PW-3) and Dinu Dewangan (PW-4) did not support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has not been able to prove the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the appellant is not sustainable and the appellant deserves to be acquitted.
4. On the contrary, Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant do not warrant any interference by this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record of Sessions Trial No. 318/2001 with utmost circumspection. Conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of injured Munnalal (PW-2).
6. In Ranjit Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 255, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :”
17. ...... .... under the Indian Evidence Act, trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person, whereas evidence given by half a dozen witnesses which is not trustworthy would not be
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
