Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment and order dated 16.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at in Criminal Appeal filed by the present appellants modifying the judgment passed by the Trial Court convicting the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and confirming their conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Brief Facts:
On the basis of fardbeyan of Kumar Nandan Singh made at the clinic of Dr. Himkar, the police registered an FIR under Sections 323, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The injured informant stated that on the fateful day, while he was repairing the ‘Kaccha Mud Wall’, which had fallen down due to rain, with the help of hired labourers, his neighbour, namely, accused–appellant, Manoj Singh came and objected to repairing of the wall. The informant told him that the land belongs to him, after which Manoj Singh went to his house and came back again along with co-accused Anuj Singh having guns in their hands. The other two accused, Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh, also came having spears in their hands. It was further stated that Manoj Singh and Anuj Singh both with a malafide intention to kill him, fired shots. The bullet shot fired from the gun of Manoj Singh struck in the left leg and the bullet fired from the gun of Anuj Singh hit the hand. It was further stated that Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh assaulted him with the spear and lathi in their hands. On hearing gun shots, his family members and other villagers came there. Seeing the people coming, all the four accused ran away to their houses.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the conviction is under Section 27 of the Arms Act but there is no material available on record to indicate recovery of any gun or any seizure memo showing recovery of any bullet or pellets from the spot. It was stated that even though the fardbeyan was recorded on 10.10.1999 and First Information Report was registered on the same day but the same was sent to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12.10.1999 and in the absence of any explanation for delayed submission of FIR, the whole prosecution story becomes doubtful. It was submitted that the contradictory statements made by the prosecution witnesses cast a serious shadow of doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution story and, thus, the appellants have been wrongly convicted and are liable to be discharged.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court after analysing the statement of the witnesses has rightly convicted the appellants and there being no illegality in the impugned order, the same does not warrant any interference.
SC’s Observations:
The issue before the SC was whether conviction of the two appellants, Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh, under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act is sustainable?
SC stated that 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.
SC further stated that 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. SC stated that when a person commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons and means under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of three years, or with fine.
SC stated that the two appellants have caused hurt on the body of the informant by using firearm on account of an altercation which took place between the appellants and the informant. 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.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “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. The High Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment.”
Case Title: Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. The State of Bihar
Bench: CJI. and N.V. Ramana And J. Krishna Murari and J. Hima Kohli
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 150 OF 2020
Decided on: 22nd April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
\
Picture Source :
