Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 2267
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
Narendra Meena - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1565 of 2016
Decided On : 10-04-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Desh Raj, Ms. Priyanka Chouhan
For the State : Mr. R.R. Gurjar
The sole statement of an injured witness can be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused if it is reliable and consistent, even in the absence of an eyewitness or corroborating evidence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 374 CR.P.C. - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 307 AND 323 IPC - CHALLENGE - SOLE STATEMENT OF INJURED WITNESS - RELIABILITY - RECOVERY OF WEAPON - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - NATURE OF INJURIES - SENTENCE - LEGALITY AND REASONABLENESS.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant challenged the conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 307 and 323 IPC. The prosecution relied on the sole statement of the injured witness, Shri Manak Chand, who claimed that the appellant inflicted injuries on his head with an axe. The appellant argued that the prosecution case was doubtful due to the absence of an eyewitness, hostile witnesses, and inconsistencies in the injured's statement. He also questioned the reliability of the medical evidence and the severity of the injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found 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's statement. The court also held that the medical evidence was sufficient to establish the grievous nature of the injuries. The court upheld the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 307 IPC but quashed the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 323 IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the sole statement of the injured witness was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt. 2. Whether the prosecution case was doubtful due to the absence of an eyewitness, hostile witnesses, and inconsistencies in the injured's statement. 3. Whether the medical evidence was sufficient to establish the grievous nature of the injuries. 4. Whether the sentence awarded to the appellant was excessive and unreasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sole statement of the injured witness was reliable and sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt. It noted that the injured witness had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant and that his statement was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. 2. The court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding the absence of an eyewitness, hostile witnesses, and inconsistencies in the injured's statement. It held that the absence of an eyewitness did not render the prosecution case doubtful, as the injured witness was himself an eyewitness to the incident. The court also held that the hostile witnesses were not material witnesses and that the inconsistencies in the injured's statement were minor and did not affect the overall credibility of his testimony. 3. The court held that the medical evidence was sufficient to establish the grievous nature of the injuries. It noted that the injured witness had sustained multiple injuries to his head, including fractures, and that these injuries required surgery. 4. The court held that the sentence awarded to the appellant was not excessive and unreasonable. It considered the nature of the injuries, the weapon used, the part of the body where the injuries were caused, and the manner in which the whole incident occurred.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal. It quashed the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 323 IPC but upheld 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
