NEELAM BAHAL & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 1270 · Decided: 02-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, DEEPAK VERMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1270 
A 
NEELAM BAHAL & ANR. 
v. 
~ .
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1012 of 2009) 
B 
DECEMBER 02, 2009 
.~ 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s.326- Knife injuries caused by accused to victim during 
~-
c 
altercation - Accused convicted u/s 307 and his sister and 
mother convicted uls 307 rlw s.34 - Pending appeal, mother 
of accused died - High Court confirming conviction of 
accused and his sister- HELD: There is absolutely no reason 
D to doubt the statement of prosecution witne_sses including the 
victim with regard to the incident - It is true that there are 
f 
some differences between the-statements of the witnesses but 
they are bound to occur with the evidence being recorded after 
about five years - There is some uncertainty about the 
E involvement of appellant No .. 1 (sister of accused) - The facts 
of the case indicate that she was perhaps not aware that 
accused was carrying .a ·weapon with him - Prosecution 
evidence also reveals that it was only after the quarrel had 
reached a certain pitcti .that the accused rushed inside the 
.,j 
F 
house and brought a knife and caused injuries to victim - No 
specific overt act has been attributed to appellant no. 1 and 
only a very tenuous role has been ascribed to her - This kind 
of evidence creates a clear doubt as to her participation -
Appellant no. 1, therefore, must be given the benefit of doubt, 
and thereby acquitted - With regard to the nature of offence, 
G medical evidence indicates that though the general condition 
of the patient was very bad yet there is no categoric statement 
in the medical certificate that the injuries were in fact 
,, 
dangerous to life - The benefit must accrue to the accused -
At the same time, the statement of victim that he had 
Ii 
1270 
t
NEELAM BAHAL & ANR. v. STATE OF 
1271 
UTTARAKHAND 
remained in hospital for fifteen days due to the injuries caused A 
> 
to him, makes out a case of grevious hurt - Accused alone 
should thus be held guilty uls.326 /PC simplicitor - However, 
in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence is 
~ 
reduced to the period already undergone. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal B 
No. 1012 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 5.12.2008 of the High 
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 751 of 
2001 (Old No. 1077 of 1991). 
c 
Kamini Jaiswal, S. Bakshi, A Shrestha for the Appellants. 
AP. Sahai, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
D 
-' 
ORDER 
" 
This appeal arises from the following facts: 
Satish Chandra (PW.3) was running a video and tea shop E 
in Tagore Villa, Dehradun and had employed Shanichar (PW.2) 
as a servant. It appears that Shanichar and Satish Chandra fell 
out over the payment of wages on which the former left his 
employment and accepted fresh employment with Rakesh 
Bahal, one of the appellant's herein, as a servant in his shop. F 
On account of this development the relations between the 
parties, who were otherwise well known to each other, became 
extremely strained and some threat was given by the Rakesh 
Bahal that in case Shanichar was not returned to his 
employment, dire consequence would follow on the complainant G 
party. As a result of some compromise, however, it was 
ultimately agreed that Shanichar would return to Rakesh Bahal 
and for that purpose Satish Chandra took Shanichar on his 
scooter to the residence of Rakesh Bahal. It is further the case 
of the prosecution that there was some altercation between 
H 
1272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A Rakesh Bahal on the one hand and Satish Chandra, Neelam 
appellant (sister of Rakesh Bahal) and mother Raj Bahal on the 
.J... 
other, and in the course of this altercation Rakesh Bahal, 
caused two 'injuries with a knife which he was carrying on the 
person of Satish Chandra. Satish Chandra was removed to the 
" 
B 
hospital but en route he told his brother Rajiv (PW.4) as to what 
had transpired and on this information a report was lodged by 
(PW.4) in the police station. The investigation was thereafter 
started and various steps therein were taken and on the 
completion thereof a charge under Sec. 307/34 was framed 
,I.. 
c against the three accused - Rakesh Bahal. his mother Raj 
Bahal and sister Neelam Bahal. The trial Court in its judgment 
dated 27/5/1991 relying on the statement of Shanichar (pW.2) 
and the injured himsel

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