Brief Facts
- Accused persons were convicted for an offence under section 307 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. The High Court modified the conviction to an offence under section 324 IPC read with section 27 of the Arms Act.
Issues
- Whether the testimony of the witness be disregarded merely because of minor contradictions or omissions?
- Whether the plea of alibi claimed by the Appellant be accepted?
- Relevancy and importance of Medical Evidence.
- Essential Ingredients of offence under section 324 IPC.
Held
- The Apex Court dismissed the appeal and the order passed by the High Court was upheld.
- It is not disputed that there are minor contradictions concerning the time of the occurrence or injuries attributed to hand or foot but the constant narrative of the witnesses is that the appellants were present at the place of occurrence armed with guns and they caused the injury on informant PW-6. However, the testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omissions.
- The defense of plea of alibi taken by appellant Manoj Singh that he was posted at Islampur Block does not inspire confidence as there is no attendance register maintained by the office and the prosecution witness has categorically stated that the Appellant, Manoj Singh was present at the place of occurrence.
- To establish an offence under Sec 324 IPC, the presence of the following ingredients is a must which is as follows:-
- Voluntary hurt caused to another person by the accused, and
- Such hurt was caused:
- By any instrument used for shooting, cutting, or stabbing, or any other instrument likely to cause death, or
- By fire or other heated instruments, or
- By poison or other corrosive substance, or
- By any explosive substance, or
- By a substance that is dangerous for the human body to swallow, inhale, or receive through blood, or
- By an animal.
- The evidentiary value of a medical witness is very crucial to corroborate the case of the prosecution and it is not merely a check upon testimony of eyewitnesses, it is also independent testimony, because it may establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence. It has been reiterated by this court that the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great corroborative value as it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged.
- In the case at hand, it is evident from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the two appellants have caused hurt to the body of the informant, by using a firearm on account of an altercation that took place between the appellants and the informant.
- It also stands corroborated from the evidence of the prosecution witness that there existed previous enmity between the parties due to a land dispute and the same can be perceived from their acts. Thus, the charge of Section 324 IPC stands established against the two appellants. Once the charge against the appellants under Section 324 IPC of voluntarily causing injuries by firearm, which is a dangerous weapon stands established, they cannot escape the punishment for using arms prescribed by Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Relevant Para No.
- 16, 17, 18, 21 & 22