The prosecution must provide corroborative evidence to support a conviction; the sole testimony of a complainant with animosity towards the accused is insufficient for a guilty verdict.

ORDER

In this criminal appeal the judgment delivered on 19.11.2024 by Sessions Judge, Shahdol, in Sessions Trial No.12/2023 is under challenge whereby the appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) was convicted of the offence of Section 450 and 326 of IPC and was sentenced under individual charges to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default clause to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine.

2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of this criminal appeal are that on 11.09.2022 at around 5:30 p.m. victim Dev @ Pintu Vishwakarma was with his wife Vandana inside the rented room, which is situated behind Aman Hotel; he heard knock at the door and when he opened the door, accused was standing there with whom complainant had previous acquaintance; accused made a query about why the complainant was here and after entering into the room, accused gave the complainant several blows with the knife which he was carrying; on sustaining injuries, complainant screamed and his wife, his landlady and one more girl arrived and intervened; accused fled away from the spot; earlier accused used to have conversation on phone with the wife of complainant, which was being objected by the complainant and to revenge this objection accused committed the crime; complainant Dev @ Pintu was taken to district hospital and then to Medical College Shahdol; the relative of complainant were informed and they too arrived; on the basis of report made by the complainant, FIR at Crime No.426/2022 was registered at Police Station Sohagpur and after the filing of charge-sheet accused faced the trial for the charges of Sections 450 and 307 IPC. He was acquitted of the charge of Section 307 IPC but was convicted for the offence of Sections 450 and 326 IPC and was sentenced as aforesaid.

3. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the impugned judgment suffers from various infirmities as contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses were overlooked and without making any judicial appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of conviction was given; even the wife of complainant did not support his version; the other independent witnesses too failed to corroborate his testimony; Dr. Ajay Kumar Rathia (PW8) has categorically stated that he did not find any injuries on the vital part of the body of complainant and there was no blood on the tip of knife, the accused was still held guilty; the evidence led in defence was completely ignored and merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises, the impugned judgment was passed. It is, therefore, requested that the appeal should be allowed and the accused should be acquitted.

4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the appeal claiming that the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of facts and law hence, no indulgence is warranted.

5. Counsel for both the parties have been heard and the record has been perused.

6. From the perusal of Dehati Nalishi, marked as Ex.P/08, and the FIR registered on its basis, marked as Ex.P/21, it is clear that complainant Dev @ Pintu was entertaining enmity with accused for the reason that he was under the belief that accused used to have telephonic conversation with the wife of complainant and harass her and when complainant would ask his wife to discontinue this conversation, accused used to object to it. In his court testimony complainant Dev @ Pintu (PW5) has reiterated the fact of love relationship between his wife and accused. In para 11 of his cross- examination he was asked about the proof of this relationship, but he evaded the answer by claiming that the proof may be available in the house. His testimony reflects that he was entertaining doubt on the fidelity of his wife and was living under the belief that his wife and accused were in some kind of illicit relationship. This fact itself gives a ground to the complainant to grind his axe against the accused.