LexINDIRA DEVI AND ORS. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016] 3 S.C.R. 568 INDIRA DEVI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 524 of2016) JUNE 03, 2016 [DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3071149 a11d s. 148 - Conviction under - Prosecution case that land dispute befl1'een the victim a11d the husband of appellant no. 1 - On the fatefit! day, victim beaten by appellants and two others - Gun shot injuries inflicted by husband of appellant no. 1 and axe injuries inflicted by husband of appellant no. 3 _:_FIR lodged by victim for offences uls. 14711481307 rlw s. 149 ands. 25 of Arms Act against three appellants-ladies alongwith husband of appellant no. 1 and 3 - Conviction of five charge sheeted accused uls. 3071149 ands, 148 by the courts below - On appeal, held: Courts below should not have believed the exaggerated and contradictory deposition of the victim qua appellants - Medical evidence did not corroborate the subsequent allegations made by the victim against appellants - Trial court ignored the contradiction and subsequent development qua the three appellants as also erred in not keeping in mind that injured witness when interested must be subjected to carefitl scrutiny - High Court erred in not analyzing the evidence of the victim as well as the medical evidence with care and caution -Thus, appellants acquitted of all the charges by extending them benefit of doubt. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 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 ignored the contradiction and subsequent development qua the three appellants and its failure to consider whether the complainant should be believed only in part qua the male accused persons and not in respect of the appellants. This approach of the trial court is clearly erroneous in law. [Paras 6, 7) (572-D-F] 568 INDIRA DEVI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 1.2 As per prosecution case there is no corresponding injury on the person of victim to support the allegation of assault against' · the appellants. Coupled with this fact the initial version also creates a serious doubt that the specific allegations against the appellants have been developed later in the course of deposition in Court. Such allegation came only from PW-1 without support from any independent witness. In such circumstances and due to lack of convincing medical evidence, the credibility of specific allegations against the appellants required serious consideration by the trial court and also by the High Court while bearing the appeal. Unfortunately for the appellants, such consideration did not take place. [Para 8] [573-B-D] 1.3 A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the High Court did not consider the specific case of the appellants that they were merely by-standers and specific allegations against them have been added subsequently, contrary to the statement before the police. 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 IPC. [Para 9] [573-D-l<'] 1.4 The courts below should not have believed the exaggerated and contradictory deposition of the victim qua the appellants in view of the fact that the parties were having land dispute from before and even then in the FIR no specific role was assigned to the appellants while specific role was assigned to two co-accused. The medical evidence also does not corroborate the subsequent allegations made by the victim against the appellants. The broad features of the case also 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 are set aside and are
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.