Facts of the case
- Victim Shriram lodged an F.I.R. for offences under Section 147/148/307 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act against all the three appellants who are ladies alongwith husband of appellant no. 1 and husband of appellant no. 3.
- It was alleged in the FIR that on the previous day two trees of Khair had fallen down and on the date of occurrence at about 8 o’clock in the morning when the informant wanted the trees to be cut into pieces, allegedly the five accused persons came at the spot and started beating him. Husband of appellant no. 1 was having gun which he fired at his left jaw. Husband of appellant no. 3assaulted with axe at the right arm.
- Later on, the victim submitted to the court that the appellant no. 2 attacked him with ‘darat’ which hit on his left hand, the other two appellants also gave him beatings with kicks and fist blows. He has specified that blood oozed out only from left jaw and right hand. He also admitted to the court that there was civil/land dispute between him and his brothers, the husbands of the appellants.
- The Additional Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case against all the five charge-sheeted accused and imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment (RI) for five years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
- RI for six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each was also imposed on all the convicts for offence under Section 148 of the IPC.
- Husband of appellant no. 1was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years along with a fine of Rs.3,000/- for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
- In appeal, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla by the impugned judgment and order affirmed the conviction and sentences as noted above and dismissed the appeal as one without any merit.
Judgment
The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that , “The trial court judgment discloses that the defence confronted the victim with his earlier statement wherein he had not alleged appellant no. 2 assaulted him with a ‘darat’. But the trial court misdirected itself by confining the consideration only to the issue as to whether the complainant who was an injured should be relied upon or not. In view of his being an injured witness as proved by the Doctor, the trial court chose to place full reliance on his deposition. This approach of the trial court is clearly erroneous in law.The proposition of law that an injured witness is generally reliable is no doubt correct but even an injured witness must be subjected to careful scrutiny if circumstances and materials available on record suggest that he may have falsely implicated some innocent persons also as an after-thought on account of enmity and vendetta. The trial court erred in not keeping this in mind. The High Court erred in not analyzing the evidence of the victim as well as the medical evidence with care and caution in the light of specific defence of the appellants that there was no reliable material and circumstances to rope them with the assault upon the victim made by the other accused persons, with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC. On this account the impugned judgment and order therefore stands vitiated not only on facts but also in law.The broad features of the case reveal that the two male accused were allegedly having a gun and an axe in their hand and they used these weapons only to cause injuries which did not pose any danger to the life of the victim. In such circumstances the women accused could have hardly any reason to unnecessarily get involved into assault so as to cause simple injuries by fists and kicks.”
The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants were set aside and they were acquitted of all the charges by extending them the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed.
BY: ANKIT RAJPUT