S.326 IPC Conviction Upheld: Partial Discrepancy in Witness Testimony Not Fatal; Himachal Pradesh HC Stresses S.145 Evidence Act on Contradictions - 2025-05-28

Legal Awareness & Information.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Grievous Hurt, Emphasizes Rules on Witness Testimony and Contradictions

Shimla , HP - The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in a significant ruling dated May 28, 2025, dismissed an appeal filed by SanjayPantri against his conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing grievous hurt with a broken beer bottle. Justice RakeshKainthla , presiding over the case (CR.A/61/2009), affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that minor discrepancies or partial falsehoods in a witness's statement do not automatically render the entire testimony unreliable. The Court also meticulously outlined the correct procedure for contradicting a witness using their previous statements made to the police.

Case Background: Altercation Leads to Serious Injury

The case dates back to September 11, 2006, when an altercation occurred at a liquor vend in Tutikandi, Shimla . According to the prosecution, SanjayPantri (appellant/accused) got into an argument with Sushil Thakur (victim, PW14). During the scuffle, Pantri allegedly broke a beer bottle and stabbed Thakur in the stomach, causing a life-threatening, grievous injury with his intestines protruding.

The police initially charged Pantri and others under Section 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla , in its judgment dated February 17, 2009, convicted Pantri under Section 326 IPC, finding the act was sudden and without premeditation but involved a dangerous weapon causing grievous hurt. Pantri was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000, with ₹25,000 to be paid as compensation to the victim.

Appellant's Arguments Challenging Conviction

Before the High Court, Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate for SanjayPantri , argued that: * Eyewitness testimonies were unreliable and did not support the prosecution's case. * The victim was intoxicated and could have sustained injuries from a fall on the uneven, poorly lit ground. * The trial court erred in relying on the victim's testimony, especially since a part of his statement (implicating other acquitted co-accused) was disbelieved. The appellant invoked the principle of "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything). * An OPD slip mentioning "accidental" injuries was wrongly discarded by the trial court. * A doctor (PW7) had admitted the possibility of injuries being caused by a fall.

State's Defence of the Trial Court Verdict

Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General for the State, countered that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence. He argued that the victim's testimony regarding the appellant's role was corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence, and any improvement in his statement regarding co-accused was rightly discarded.

High Court's Detailed Analysis and Reasoning

Justice RakeshKainthla meticulously examined the evidence and legal arguments.

1. On 'Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus': The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the victim's entire testimony should be discarded because a part was disbelieved. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Arvind Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2022) and Arun v. State of M.P. (2025), the Court reiterated: > "The principle that when a witness deposes falsehood, the evidence in its entirety has to be eschewed may not have strict application to the criminal jurisprudence in our country. The principle governing sifting the chaff from the grain has to be applied." The Court held that the victim's testimony could be relied upon for convicting SanjayPantri even if his claims about other acquitted individuals were not accepted.

2. Credibility of Victim (PW14) and Eyewitness (PW1 Arun Thakur ): The victim ( Sushil Thakur , PW14) consistently stated that SanjayPantri broke a beer bottle and struck him in the stomach. This was corroborated by Arun Thakur (PW1), an eyewitness, who testified to seeing Pantri deliver the blow. The Court found their testimonies credible regarding the appellant's act.

3. Procedure for Contradicting Witnesses (S.145 Evidence Act & S.162 CrPC): A significant portion of the judgment addressed the defence's attempt to contradict PW1 Arun Thakur with his previous police statement (Ex.DC). The Court found the contradiction was not properly proven as per law. Justice Kainthla elaborated on the correct procedure: > "Proviso to Section 162 of Cr.P.C. permits the use of the statement recorded by the police to contradict a witness... if the statement is duly proved... if the witness denies or says that he did not remember the previous statement, the Investigating OfÏcer should be asked about the same." The judgment detailed, citing numerous precedents including Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. and Alauddin v. State of Assam , that merely marking a portion of the police statement is insufficient if the witness denies it. The Investigating Officer must be questioned to prove that the witness indeed made that specific contradictory statement. Since this procedure was not followed, the alleged contradiction was not given weight.

4. Informant (PW13 Amit Nanda) Turning Hostile: The informant, Amit Nanda (PW13), resiled from his initial statement (Ex.PW13/A) where he had implicated Pantri . In court, he claimed not to have seen who hit the victim. The High Court found his changed testimony unreliable, noting: > "He admitted that he had signed the statement (Ex.PW13/A) after reading it. It was specifically mentioned in the statement that the accused, Sanjay Panthri , had inflicted a blow using a broken bottle. If this statement was read by this witness before signing it, he would not have signed it, if it was untrue..."

5. Medical Evidence and OPD Slip : Doctors (PW8 Dr. Ravinder Mokta and PW7 Dr. Kailash Chander) confirmed the injuries were grievous, dangerous to life, and could have been caused by a broken glass bottle. The defence's reliance on an OPD slip (Ex.DA) mentioning "accidental penetrating injury" was dismissed: > "First of all, it is not known who has given this history... Further, the history mentioned in the emergency casualty slip is not substantive evidence and can be used to contradict its author. This procedure was not adopted... it will fall within the definition of written hearsay and is inadmissible."

6. Sentence Justification: The Court found the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and ₹50,000 fine (with ₹25,000 compensation) to be appropriate, considering the weapon used (broken bottle), the vital part of the body targeted (stomach), and the grievous nature of the injury. > "The weapon used and the part of the body where it was directed show the intention of the accused to cause serious injury to the injured. Keeping in view the nature of the injury and the part of the body where the injury was caused, the sentence of three years is not excessive."

Final Decision

Concluding that the trial court's judgment was "fully sustainable," the High Court dismissed SanjayPantri 's appeal, thereby affirming his conviction and sentence under Section 326 IPC. The registry was directed to send the records back to the trial court.