Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
Narendra S/o Chittar Lal B/c Meena - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1565 of 2016
Decided On : 10-04-2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 374 CR.P.C. - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 307 AND 323 IPC - SOLE STATEMENT OF INJURED WITNESS - RELIABILITY - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - NATURE OF INJURIES - PREVIOUS ENMITY - RECOVERY OF WEAPON - ADMISSIBILITY - INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 307 and 323 IPC, arguing that the prosecution case was doubtful due to the absence of an eyewitness, hostile witnesses, and inconsistencies in the injured witness's statement. He also questioned the reliability of the medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the sole statement of the injured witness was reliable and sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt. It rejected the appellant's arguments regarding the absence of an eyewitness, hostile witnesses, and inconsistencies in the injured witness's statement, finding no material contradictions or improvements that would render the statement unreliable. The court also found that the medical evidence supported the injured witness's testimony and that the recovery of the weapon, though not conclusive, was admissible as corroborative evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the sole statement of the injured witness was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt in the absence of an eyewitness and in light of hostile witnesses and inconsistencies in the injured witness's statement? 2. Whether the medical evidence was reliable and supported the injured witness's testimony? 3. Whether the recovery of the weapon was admissible and could be used to corroborate the injured witness's statement?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sole statement of the injured witness was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt, as it was reliable and consistent. The court found no material contradictions or improvements in the injured witness's statement that would render it unreliable. The court also noted that the injured witness had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant and that his testimony was supported by medical evidence. 2. The court found that the medical evidence was reliable and supported the injured witness's testimony. The court noted that the injured witness had sustained four injuries to his head, which were found to be grievous in nature and dangerous to life. The court also noted that the injured witness had undergone surgery and had been hospitalized for several days. 3. The court held that the recovery of the weapon was admissible as corroborative evidence, even though it was not conclusive. The court noted that the weapon was recovered at the instance of the appellant and that it was consistent with the injured witness's testimony.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, quashing the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 323 IPC but upholding the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 307 IPC.
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
The accused-appellant by way of this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran in Sessions Case No.133/2016 whereby the learned trial Court after holding the appellant guilty for offence under Section 323 IPC sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and also convicting him for offence under Section 307 IPC sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,500/- and in default thereof to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months. It was also ordered that if the amount of fine is deposited by the appellant, an amount of Rs.50,000/- would be paid to the victim Shri Manak Chand as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount of Rs.500/- would be deposited in exchequer. It was further directed that both the substantive sentences would run concurrently.
2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that Shri Satyanarayan (PW1), brother of injured victim-Shri Manak Chand (PW3) on 31.3.2013 at 11.25 p.m. submitted a written report (Ex.P1) before Police Station Anta (District Baran) alleging therein that on 21.3.2013 at 10.15 p.m. when his brother Shri Manak Chand Meena along with Shri Pradeep, Shri Pappu and Shri Lekhraj was watching TV at the shop of Shri Nand Kishore Meena, appellant came there on a motorcycle and with intention to cause death of his brother inflicted four injuries on his head with an axe and them he fled away from the place of incident on his motorcycle. It was further averred in the report that his father, uncle-Shri Chaturbhuj, Shri Vidyaratan, Shri Lekhraj etc. brought his brother in the jeep of Shri Bharat Prakash Galav to CHC Anta and the doctor finding the condition of brother serious referred him for further treatment to Kota. On the basis of this report, FIR No.91/2013 was registered for offences under Sections 307 and 323 IPC at Police Station Anta (Baran) and investigation was undertaken. During the course of investigation injured-Shri Manak Chand was medically examined, statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., appellant was arrested and at his instance an axe allegedly used in the incident was recovered and after usual investigation charge-sheet for offences under Sections 307, 323 and 325 IPCF was filed against the appellant. Charge for aforesaid offences was accordingly framed against the appellant and in order to prove the same, prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. Appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution and specifically stated that due to previous enmity he has falsely been implicated but in defence no evidence was produced. Learned trial Court after considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the evidence made available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as already stated. It is to be noted that he was acquitted for offence under Section 325 IPC.
3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant raised the following grounds:-
(1) It is an admitted fact that complainant-informer-PW1-Shri Satyanarayan, brother of injured Shri Manak Chand, is not an eyewitness of the incident and he lodged the written report either on the basis of information furnished to him by wife of Shri Hariom or by Shri Vidyaratan, but during trial neither of them was produced as witness and in absence thereof it cannot be said that report was lodged by Shri Satyanarayan on the basis of information received from either of them and when the source on the basis of which the report was lodged is not clear, by raising adverse inference against the prosecution it must 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
