The evidence of eye witnesses can be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, even if the doctor has omitted to give an opinion about the weapon of offence.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Murder and Attempt to Murder - Evidence - Appreciation of - Medical evidence - Omission of the doctor to give an opinion about the weapon of offence - Effect - Circumstances in which prosecution case should not be thrown away - Principles.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for the offences under sections 302 and 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment on the first count and eight years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo one months' rigorous imprisonment on the second count. The prosecution case was that the appellant had fired three gun shots at Baluram but none hit him and thereafter he threw one hand granade which fell at a distance of 5-7 paces from them. The hand granade burst out and its splinters hit Baluram and nine other persons who were with him. They all except Mst. Surji who had fallen on the ground at the spot went away from there. Rameshwar was said to have sat down near Mst. Surji telling that he would not allow any body to lift Mst. Surji from there.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the evidence of the injured persons was sufficient to prove that the appellant had thrown the hand grenade which caused injuries to the deceased and other injured persons. The court also held that the omission of the doctor to give an opinion about the weapon of offence did not render the prosecution case unreliable, as there was positive evidence of the eye witnesses that the appellant had thrown the hand grenade at the deceased and others.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the injured persons was sufficient to prove that the appellant had thrown the hand grenade which caused injuries to the deceased and other injured persons? 2. Whether the omission of the doctor to give an opinion about the weapon of offence rendered the prosecution case unreliable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the injured persons was sufficient to prove that the appellant had thrown the hand grenade which caused injuries to the deceased and other injured persons. The court relied on the fact that the injured persons had consistently stated that the appellant had thrown the hand grenade, and that their evidence was corroborated by the medical evidence which showed that the injuries were caused by the splinters of the hand grenade. 2. The court held that the omission of the doctor to give an opinion about the weapon of offence did not render the prosecution case unreliable, as there was positive evidence of the eye witnesses that the appellant had thrown the hand grenade at the deceased and others. The court noted that the doctor had examined the injuries of the deceased and the other injured persons and had found that they were caused by the splinters of the hand grenade. The court also noted that the doctor had sent the pieces of the hand grenade to the Ballistic Expert, who had confirmed that they were pieces of a hand grenade.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for the offences under sections 302 and 307 Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar dated 15th January, 1977 by which he convicted the appellant for the offences under sections 302 and 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment on the first count and eight years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo one months' rigorous imprisonment on the second count.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to the trial of the appellant ate that on 4.4.74 at 8.00 p.m. Baluram (P.W.8) resident of village-Khcri Tehsil was going from his house towards the village to extend invitation for 'Bhat' ceremony in connection with the marriage of his cousin. When he reached near the peepal tree (fig tree) standing on the ground out side his house, he saw the appellant Rameshwar standing there alone with Beyta, Kushla and Ramkumar. On seeing him, Ramkumar cried out that enemy was coming towards his house, at which his companions Beyta, Kushla and Ramkumar told him what was there to see he should accomplish the task. Baluram stopped there hearing their talks Rameshwar while pointing his pistol towards him gave a warning that he was going to be shot at and immediately thereafter he fired three shots but none hit Baluram because he had hidden himself behind the people there. On hearing the report of the pistol Bhagwan, Amarsingh and Hasankhan reached their and enquired from Baluram about the matter. Meanwhile Manguram 'P.W.17,. Gordhan. Sharwan (P.W. 15). Bhagwanaram (P W.7), Nathusingh (P.W.6) and Mst. Surji (P. W. 11) also reached their and enquired from Baluram whether he had sustained any injury. Baluram replied in the negative. All these persons then proceeded towards the house of Baluram. Just then Beyata, Kushla and Ramkumar who were standing near by instigated Rameshwar that the enemies were going collectively and he should do away with them. When Baluram and others accompanying him had reached in between the peepal tree and electric pole. Rameshwar throw one hand granade which fell at a distance of 5-7 paces from them. The hand granade burst out and its splinters hit Baluram and nine other persons who were with him. They all except Mst. Surji who had fallen on the ground at the spot went away from there. Rameshwar was said to have sat down near Mst. Surji telling that he would not allow any body to lift Mst. Surji from there. On reaching the house, Gordhan became unconscious and the injured person brought Gordhan in a camel-cart to Laxmangarh. Baluram lodged a written report Ex. P. 6 at Police Station Laxmangarh on 5-4-75 at 3.15 P. M. and then he along with other injured, proceeded to Sikar Hospital by train. In the way between Laxmangarh and Sikar Gordhan breathed his last. The injured along with the dead body of Gordhan went to hospital Sikar where Dr. B. P. Jangid (P. W. 4) examined the injuries of the injured persons and conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Gordhan the same day.

3. Dr. Jangid examined Baluram and found one lacerated wound 3/4" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the back of the left upper arm. The injury was simple. X-ray was advised to determine the nature of the weapon used. The X-ray report revealed a big radio opaque shadow in his left shoulder region. On its basis Dr. Jangid opined that the injury was caused by some gun powder blast. The injury report prepared by Dr. Jangid is Ex.P.8

4. On examination of Hasankhan Dr. Jangid noted one abration 1/2" x 1/2" on the left side of the back of chest 2" below last rib. The injury was simple and caused by some blunt object. The injury report is Ex. P.9.

5. On the same day Dr. Jangid examined Bhagwanaram and noted the following injuries on his person :

1. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4" on the left buttock posteriorly.

2. Lacerated wound 1/2" x ⅛" x ⅙" on the back of right leg at the junction of lower two third and upper on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1980 Supreme(Raj) 181

The evidence of eye witnesses can be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, even if the doctor has omitted to give an opinion about the weapon of offence.

Login now and unlock premium legal research