ANUJ SINGH @ RAMANUJ SINGH @ SETH SINGH versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1023 · Decided: 22-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1023
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 1023
1023
ANUJ SINGH @ RAMANUJ SINGH @ SETH SINGH
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 150 of 2020)
APRIL 22, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI, KRISHNA MURARI AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 324, 307 r/w s. 34 – Voluntarily causing
hurt by dangerous weapons or means – Altercation between the
one of the appellant and the informant, over a land dispute –
Appellants armed with guns fired upon the informant which hit his
left foot and the right arm – Other two accused assaulted the
informant with spear and lathis – Trial court convicted the appellants
u/s. 307 rw s. 34 and s. 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced accordingly
– High Court modified the conviction u/s. 307/34 to s. 324 and
awarded two years rigorous imprisonment with fine, while
confirming the conviction and sentence u/s. 27 of the Arms Act –
On appeal, held: Defence of plea of alibi by one of the appellant
does not inspire confidence – Testimony of the witnesses that the
appellants were present at the place of occurrence armed with guns
and they caused the injury on informant cannot be discarded
because of minor contradictions – Medical evidence of the doctor
corroborates that the injuries on the informant were caused by
firearms – Evidence of prosecution witnesses that the two appellants
caused hurt on the body of the informant by using firearm on account
of an altercation – Charge of s. 324 of voluntarily causing injuries
by firearm-dangerous weapon, established against the appellants,
and as such they cannot escape the punishment for using arms
prescribed by s. 27 of the Arms Act – Thus, the High Court rightly
convicted the appellants for the offences punishable u/s. 324 and
s. 27 of the Arms Act – Criminal trial.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A bare perusal of the deposition of the witnesses
prove that the two appellants were present at the place of
occurrence with a firearm and injury was caused to the informant
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1024
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
due to the act of the appellants. The defence of plea of alibi taken
by appellant M 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 M was present at the place of occurrence.
[Para 16][1033-D-E]
1.2 It is not disputed that there are minor contradictions
with respect to the time of the occurrence or injuries attributed
on 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. However, the
testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded
merely because of minor contradictions or omission.
[Para 17][1033-E-G]
1.3 The evidentiary value of a medical witness is very crucial
to corroborate the case of 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. 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. PW-8, doctor who
examined the informant has clearly stated that all the injuries
attributed on the informant were caused by firearms and that
tattooing may not appear over the wound (injured area) if a person
fires from 6-7 ft. [Para 18][1034-D-F]
1.4 A detailed examination of prosecution witnesses clearly
establishes that there was altercation between Informant and the
two appellants with respect to preventing the Informant from
repairing his wall; that all the witnesses unequivocally confirmed
the presence of the two appellants at the place of occurrence;
that all the eyewitness have confirmed that the two appellants
were armed with firearm; that the medical evidence of PW-8,
doctor corroborates that injuries inflicted on the Informant were
firearm injuries; and that the injuries were inflicted on the non-
vital part of the body of the Informant. [Para 19][1034-F-H]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1025
1.5 The term “hurt” simply means performing an act which
leads to physical pain, injury or any disease to a person. At times,
hurt may be caused voluntarily or it can by caused by using
dangerous weapons or mean. A person will be liable to have caused
hurt voluntarily through dangerous weapons and means under
Section 324 IPC. When a person c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.