Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 3113
DELHI HIGH COURT
A.K.Pathak, J.
Suresh @ Sureshwar - Appellant
Versus
State - Resopndent
Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 2011
Decided On : 07-11-2012
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashwani Vij, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP.
The testimonies of the victim and his relatives can be relied upon without corroboration from public witnesses, and expert opinion on the nature of injuries can support the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
Section 307 IPC - Conviction based on testimonies of victim and relatives - Corroboration from public witnesses not necessary - Injuries deemed dangerous by expert opinion - Intent and knowledge inferred from circumstances and nature of injuries
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 307 IPC for stabbing the victim. The prosecution's case was supported by testimonies of the victim and his relatives, corroborated by a public witness. The injuries sustained by the victim were deemed dangerous by an expert opinion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimonies of the victim and his relatives to be trustworthy and reliable, and held that their evidence did not require corroboration from public witnesses. The court also accepted the expert opinion on the dangerous nature of the victim's injuries.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the testimonies, the need for corroboration, and the nature of the victim's injuries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the testimonies of the victim and his relatives, in the absence of corroboration, were credible and reliable. The expert opinion on the dangerous nature of the injuries further supported the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the appellant's conviction under Section 307 IPC and upholding the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
A.K.Pathak, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26th May, 2011 and order on sentence dated 27th May, 2011 passed by the Trial Court; whereby appellant has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to face rigorous imprisonment of five years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. has also been given to the appellant.
2. Prosecution story, as emerges from the record, is that the appellant was living in the same building as a tenant where PW1 Ram Awtar s/o Ram Babu had been residing along with his brothers PW7 Vinod and PW9Balak Ram. PW2 Ram Avtar s/o Raja Ram is brother-in-law of PW1 who was also living with him. PW5 Smt. Rajshri is wife of PW7 Vinod. On 31st May, 2005 when the men folk were away for work and PW5 was alone in the house appellant misbehaved with her. When PW1, PW2, PW7 and PW9 returned home in the evening PW5 informed them that the appellant had misbehaved with her during the day time. When PW2 Ram Avtar and PW1 Ram Awtar asked the appellant as to why he misbehaved with PW5 Rajshri he quarreled with them. He also threatened them with dire consequences. PW1 Ram Awtar intervened and pacified them. Thereafter, all of them returned to their respective rooms.
3. In the night intervening 31st May, 2005 and 1st June, 2005 PW1 Ram Awtar, PW2 Ram Avtar and PW-9 Balak Ram were sleeping on the roof of the house when at about 2 am appellant came there and stabbed PW2 Ram Avtar. On hearing cries of PW-2 Ram Avtar, PW1 Ram Awtar and PW9 Balak Ram woke up and saw PW1 in injured condition and appellant standing besides him with a knife in his hand. PW1Ram Awtar and PW9 Balak Ram tried to apprehend appellant but he jumped in the gali and tried to escape. However, he was apprehended by PW4 Ms. Krishna. Appellant had sustained injuries due to fall.
4. PCR came there and took PW2 Ram Awtar to hospital. Appellant was handed over to the police officials. PW2 Ram Avtar was first taken to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital where his MLC was prepared. Thereafter he was shifted to GTB Hospital where he was operated. PW2 remained hospitalized from 1st June, 2005 to 28th June, 2005. His injuries were opined as “dangerous”.
5. Trial Court has found the testimony of PW1 Ram Awtar, PW2 Ram Avtar (injured) and PW9 Balak Ram trustworthy and reliable so as to conclude that it is the appellant who had stabbed PW2 Ram Avtar causing injuries on his person. Testimonies of PW3 Girish Chand, PW15 Dr.Rakesh Singh and PW16 Dr.Naveen Sharma coupled with the MLC Ex.PW15/A and discharge summary Ex.PW3/A were considered as sufficient to conclude that PW2 had sustained dangerous injuries on his person. Statement of PW5 Smt.Rajshri was also accepted by the Trial Court with regard to the previous incident whrein appellant had misbehaved with her during the day time. Her statement regarding first incident was supported by the PW1 Ram Awtar, PW2 Ram Avtar, PW7 Vinod and PW9 Balak Ram as she had complained to them on their return in the evening that the appellant had misbehaved with her during the day time. Trial Court has held that the appellant was having motive to assault PW2 Ram Avtar in the night and this was taken as corroborative piece of evidence. Trial Court was of the view that from the circumstances as also the nature of injuries sustained by PW2, intention and knowledge on the part of appellant that had he caused death of the injured by his act he would have been guilty of committing attempt to murder was deducible. Accordingly, appellant has been convicted under Section 307 IPC.
6. I have carefully perused the statements of aforesaid material witnesses and am of the view that Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC by accepting their version. I find these witnesses to be trustworthy and reliable. PW2 has fully supported the prosecution story. He has deposed that on 31st May, 2005 when he along wi
