Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 178
High Court of Delhi
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
Naresh Gautam - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
CRL.A. No. 97 of 2010
Decided on: 09-02-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate along with In person.
For the Respondent: Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that minor contradictions and variations in witness statements and the timing of medical opinions do not necessarily undermine the prosecution's case if the core of the case remains intact and the guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Contradictions - Criminal Appeal - Cr.P.C. - IPC 307/34
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the Appellant under Sections 307/34 IPC for causing dangerous injury to the complainant. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of witnesses and medical evidence. The Appellant challenged the prosecution's case by pointing out contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses and raising doubts about the authenticity of the medical opinion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contradictions and variations pointed out by the Appellant were mere elaborations or embellishments and did not raise reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case. The court upheld the conviction based on the consistent testimony of the witnesses and the medical evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution's case, the authenticity of medical evidence, and the impact of contradictions and variations in witness statements on the overall case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that minor contradictions and variations in witness statements, as well as the timing of medical opinions, did not undermine the core of the prosecution's case. The court relied on the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and found that the prosecution had successfully established its case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction under Sections 307/34 IPC, and directed the Appellant to surrender and undergo the remaining sentence.
Vipin Sanghi, J.
1. The present first appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 374 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to assail the judgment and order on sentence dated 21.12.2009 and 24.12.2009 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03 (ASJ) (Outer), Rohini Courts, Delhi in S.C. No.115/2008 arising out of First Information Report (FIR) No.435/2002 registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar under Sections (u/s) 307/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Appellant was convicted for the offences u/s 307/34 IPC by the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2009, and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for three years with fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment(SI) for 30 days.
2. The case of the prosecution, as noticed in the impugned judgment, is that on 03.08.2002 at about 09:30 p.m. at Rohtak Road, Near Peeragarhi Pul, the Appellant Naresh, S/o Sh. Madhav Singh in furtherance of common intention along with 2-3 other persons – who could not be apprehended, had voluntarily caused dangerous injury on the person of the complainant Sharvan Kumar (PW-2) with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act he caused the death of Sharvan Kumar (PW-2), he would have been guilty of murder. Therefore, the case of the prosecution was that the Appellant attempted to commit murder of Sharvan Kumar (PW-2), thereby committed offence punishable u/s 307/34 IPC. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. The Appellant also led his evidence in defence. He examined one witness Smt. Bhudevi – his mother, as DW-1.
3. The facts noted by the learned ASJ are that on 03.08.2002, Sharvan Kumar (PW-2) was going from Mangolpuri towards Peeragarhi at about 09:00 p.m. When he reached under Railway Pul, 2-3 persons came there. One of them gave him a fist blow on his nose. He caught held of his hand and asked as to why he was beating him. In the meanwhile, one other person present there stabbed in his stomach. The said persons asked Sharvan Kumar (PW-2) as to where he has kept his money. He told them the pocket where the money was kept and they took away the money. Sharvan Kumar (PW-2) raised an alarm, whereupon two police officials came there. The Police caught held of one of the culprits at the spot. Sharvan Kumar (PW-2) was taken to the hospital, and the Police also took the apprehended person with them. In the hospital, the statement of Sharvan Kumar (PW-2) was recorded, which is Exhibit PW-2/A. The person apprehended at the site is the Appellant. He was identified by Sharvan Kumar (PW-2) as one of the persons, who was involved in the attack. The Appellant was interrogated by the Police and was arrested. Rukka (Ex. PW-2/A) was prepared and sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which, the FIR was registered. The Appellant was then taken to the site, who pointed out the place of occurrence. Sharvan Kumar (PW-2) was examined by the doctors at the hospital, who advised surgery on Sharvan Kumar (PW-2). The doctors also classified the injury as ‘dangerous’ in the MLC Exhibit PW-3/A. Consequently, upon appreciation of evidence, the learned ASJ convicted and sentenced the Appellant, as aforesaid.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the learned ASJ has failed to appreciate the glaring contradictions and omissions in the case of the prosecution. In this regard, he drew the attention of the Court to the Rukka (Ex. PW-2/A) prepared on the basis of the statement of Sharvan Kumar (PW-2). Learned counsel submits that in his statement recorded as Ex. PW-2/A dated 03.08.2002, the said witness had stated that on the said day, when he was going from Mangolpuri towards Peeragarhi at about 09:30 p.m. under the Peeragarhi Pul, he was caught held by 2-3 boys and verbally abused. He stated that one of these boys attacked him with a sharp device in his stomach, upon which he raised an alarm. Consequently, “Sipah
