Back
2003 Supreme(HP) 44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Hon'ble Judges: Kuldip Chand Sood, J.
State of H.P. – Appellants
Vs.
Om Parkash and Ors. – Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 277 of 1998
Decided On: 14.03.2003
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: P.M. Negi, Asstt. Adv. General
For Respondents/Defendant: Sanjeev Kuthiala, Adv. (for No. 1), S.K. Saklani and Ajay Sharma, Advs. (for Nos. 2 and 3)
A conviction can be based on the sole testimony of an injured or complainant if it inspires confidence, and there is no rule requiring corroboration of the injured witness.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Indian Penal Code - Section 324, Section 34 - The judgment discussed the evidence of the complainant, the requirement of corroboration, and the credibility of the injured witness. The court highlighted the legal principle that a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of an injured or complainant if it inspires confidence, and the absence of a rule requiring corroboration of the injured witness. The court also emphasized that the trial court's views on the credibility of the witness must be given proper weight and consideration.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal against the acquittal of three accused who were prosecuted for an offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant, Nasib Chand, was attacked with a knife during a cultural programme, and the accused were acquitted by the trial Magistrate due to lack of corroboration of the complainant's evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the complainant was credible and corroborated by other witnesses, and there was no requirement for corroboration of the injured witness. The court also criticized the trial Magistrate for permitting the cross-examination of the complainant-injured, which was deemed unnecessary.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial Magistrate was right in acquitting the accused on the ground that the evidence of the complainant was not corroborated by independent evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established the legal principle that a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of an injured or complainant if it inspires confidence, and there is no rule requiring corroboration of the injured witness. The court also emphasized the importance of giving proper weight to the trial court's views on the credibility of the witness.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of acquittal of the trial Magistrate was set aside. The accused were convicted for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to pay fines without substantive imprisonment.
Kuldip Chand Sood, J.
1. This appeal against acquittal is directed against the judgment of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Amb, dated February 27, 1998.
2. It appears the case of prosecution was :
A cultural programme named "Sidh Chano-ka Akhara" was organised in village Totar, in Tehsil Amb of District Una in the late evening of January 30, 1996. Nasib Chand complainant (PW. 1) was asked by the organizers to collect donations from the audience for the society, which had organized this programme. Om Parkash (A1), Narinder Kumar (A2) and Rajesh Kumar (A3), respondents herein, were present in the ground as spectators. When Nasib Chand was collecting donations. Om Parkash showed him a one-rupee note indicating that he would donate it for the Society. Complainant went to Om Parkash to take the money. Om Parkash asked him to announce name of four persons for one rupee currency note. Complainant refused to comply. Thereafter, three persons caught hold of him from his arms and took him towards backside. A1 Om Parkash pulled out a knife and tried to hit him on the stomach. Nasib Chand saved this blow on stomach by putting his hand on the stomach. In the process, he received injury on his right hand. Om Parkash, not content, caused two more stab injuries with a knife on the stomach of Nasib Chand. Nasib Chand raised alarm. The accused fled away. Waryam Singh, brother of the complainant and some other persons came to the spot. On the request of the complainant he was taken near the mike on the stage. Nasib Chand announced that he was attacked with knife by Om Parkash (A1) and others. He later on was taken to the hospital. After first aid, Nasib Chand was referred to Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh for further treatment.
3. All the three accused were prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All three of them have been acquitted by the learned trial Magistrate. So far Narinder Kumar (A2) is concerned, complainant in his evidence is categorical that he had not seen Narinder Kumar on the spot. So far Rajesh Kumar (A3) is concerned, it was the evidence of the complainant-injured that he did not know Rajesh Kumar by name. He however, maintained that Rajesh Kumar was one of the persons who caught hold of him from the arm.
4. The reasons which weighed with the learned trial Magistrate to acquit the accused, were :
(a) Evidence of complainant-injured could not be relied upon without corroboration from independent evidence to lend credence to the prosecution case.
(b) Complainant was declared hostile and therefore, evidence of the complainant was not reliable.
5. I have heard Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Assistant Advocate General and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. S. Saklani, vice learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. I was also taken through the record by the learned counsels.
6. It is the evidence of Nasib Chand that on the fateful night when cultural programme was going on, he was deputed by the organizers of the programme to collect money and for that purpose, he was given a copy as this money was to go to the participants of the cultural programme. He was also assigned duty to announce programme on the mike. It is his evidence that there were hundreds of people present. He was shown a currency note of rupees 1/- by Om Parkash (A1). When he went to him, he was told by Om Parkash that he wanted name of four persons to be announced as contributors for one rupee. This request of Om Parkash was refused. Thereafter, three boys caught hold of him by the arms from his back and took him towards the backside. Thereafter, Om Parkash (A1) gave a knife blow on his stomach. He extricated his hand and saved the blow aimed at him. The knife hit his right hand. Om Parkash gave two further blows with knife on his stomach causing two slab injuries. He raised alarm on which all four of them fled aw
