Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J.
Tejram Sonker S/o Jagdish Sonker – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRR No. 87 of 2016
Decided On : 09-01-2024
IPC - Criminal Conviction - Sections 326 - Summary: The court affirmed the conviction of the applicant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on the evidence provided by the injured witness, corroborative medical evidence, and the testimony of an independent witness. The court also considered the absence of major contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence and the special status accorded to the testimony of an injured witness in law. The court held that the non-sending of the seized weapon of offence to FSL was not fatal to the prosecution's case, as the evidence of the injured witness and other corroborative evidence established the applicant's involvement in the crime. The court also emphasized the reliability of the investigating officer's testimony to prove the recovery of the weapon. The court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and reduced the applicant's sentence in light of a compromise between the parties and the circumstances of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was convicted under Section 326 of the IPC for assaulting the complainant's husband with a pickaxe, causing grievous injuries. The applicant challenged his conviction in a criminal appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of Sessions. The applicant then filed a criminal revision against the judgment of the Court of Sessions.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the conviction of the applicant under Section 326 of the IPC and reduced his sentence based on the evidence provided by the injured witness, corroborative medical evidence, and the testimony of an independent witness. The court also considered the absence of major contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence and the special status accorded to the testimony of an injured witness in law. The court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts and reduced the applicant's sentence in light of a compromise between the parties and the circumstances of the case.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of the testimonies of the witnesses, the non-sending of the seized weapon of offence to FSL, and the impact of a compromise between the parties on the applicant's sentence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the reliability of the testimonies of the injured witness and the investigating officer, the absence of major contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence, and the special status accorded to the testimony of an injured witness in law. The court also considered the impact of a compromise between the parties on the applicant's sentence.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction of the applicant under Section 326 of the IPC and reduced his sentence to the period already undergone by him instead of RI for 1 year & 6 months as imposed by the trial Court. The sentence of fine imposed upon the applicant was maintained. The applicant's bail bonds were cancelled and the surety was discharged.
ORDER :
1. This criminal revision is filed against the judgment dated 20.01.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 90/2015 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Dhamtari dismissed appeal of applicant and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.7.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Dhamtari in Criminal Case No. 587/2014 convicting applicant under Sections 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentencing him to undergo RI 01 year & 06 months with fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo SI for 01 month.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 06.07.2014 at about 10:00 a.m. applicant had broken the hedge constructed by complainant in her agriculture field and took water to his field without her permission. When husband of complainant asked applicant as to why he took water, the applicant started uttering abusive words; assaulted him by means of iron pickaxe and also gave threat of life. Due to assault made by applicant, left cheek of husband of complainant of pierced and his tooth was broken. Report of incident was made in concerned police station based on which Crime No. 218/14 for commission of offence punishable under Section 294, 323, 506B of IPC was registered. The injured was sent for medical examination to the Christian Hospital, Dhamtari where the doctor examined him and noticed piercing injuries including fracture of tooth vide Ex.P-3. The offence under Section 326 of IPC was also added against applicant because as per report of doctor, the injuries suffered by injured were grievous in nature. During investigation, applicant was arrested, statements of witnesses were recorded and articles were seized in presence of witnesses vide Ex.P-4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by police against applicant, followed by framing of charges against him by the Court below under Sections 294, 506B, 326 of IPC. Applicant abjured his guilt and sought for trial.
3. So as to prove complicity of accused/applicant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of accused/applicant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which he pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.
4. After hearing the parties and going through the material available in record including evidence of the witnesses, learned Judicial Magistrate, while acquitting the applicant of the charges under Section 294, 506B of IPC, convicted him under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced him in the manner as described in Paragraph No. 1 of this order. Applicant preferred criminal appeal before the Court of Sessions challenging his conviction, which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgments of the Courts below are contrary to the law and facts on record. He submits that the trial Court gravely erred in placing reliance on the testimonies of complainant (PW-1) and Bheduram (PW-8) without there being any independent corroboration, particularly when there are so many contradictions and omissions in the statement of Demin Bai (PW-1) and Behduram (PW-8) making their testimonies unreliable. Independent witnesses examined by prosecution are employees of complainant, therefore, could not be termed as independent witnesses. He submits that alleged weapon of offence i.e. pickaxe, was seized but the same was not sent to FSL to ascertain whether there was blood on it and if yes, did it match with the blood of injured. The seizure witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of prosecution. Hence, the conviction of applicant be set aside.
6. In alternate, learned counsel for applicant submits that if this Court comes to conclusion that there is no perversity in the finding of guilt recorded by trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court, then considering that applicant is the first offender, he remained in custody for total 31 days and durin
AI
The reliability of the testimonies of the injured witness and the investigating officer, the absence of major contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence, and the special status accorded to the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on witness testimonies and medical evidence to establish guilt under Section 326 of IPC, as well as the consideration of the reduction....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's actions constituted an offence under Section 326 of IPC, and the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove t....
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; mere serious injury does not justify conviction without corroborative evidence.
The testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable and does not require independent corroboration for conviction, and identification of a known assailant in court is sufficient evidence even in t....
The court confirmed conviction under Section 326 IPC for grievous hurt, setting aside conviction under Section 324 IPC as it constitutes a lesser included offence.
The appellate court must show compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal, and mere witness testimony without corroboration is insufficient to establish intent for assault.
Rights of victim and Society at large must be kept in mind – prolonged trial is no ground to reduce sentence to meager sentence.
The delay in sending the FIR did not affect the prosecution's case, and the court found no illegality or perversity in the lower courts' findings.
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
