On 25th June, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Subromonium Prasad while dismissing an appeal held that merely because no independent witnesses joined or examined does not take away the credibility of the prosecution. The court further added that it is well known that people shy away from becoming witnesses in court cases and the fact that nobody is prepared to come in the evidence would not lead to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved their case.
Facts of the case
The present appeal was directed against the judgment dated 08.04.2009 convicting the appellant of offence under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC and order dated 13.04.2009 sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default in the payment of fine the appellant was to undergo a further period of three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 308 and 34 IPC.
Contention of the appellant complaint:
Mr. Mohammad Shamikh, learned counsel for the appellant contended the following:
- The complainant/PW-1 has a number of cases registered against him. He contends that the complainant also acts as an informer of the Police.
- He also contended that it has come in evidence that about 10-12 persons were present at the time of the incident and no effort has been made by the Police to join any one of them as a witness.
- It was submitted that the reading of the deposition of PW-8, Dr. Prashant, and the MLC shows that there is a bullet injury and there is charring around the wound but no bullet has been found from the body of the victim or recovered even from the site.
- He stated that no weapon had been recovered and that no blood was found from the site. It was argued that injury was self-inflicted only to implicate the appellant.
- It was further contended that the appellant is being implicated due to the enmity between PW-1 and the accused.
Contention of the Respondent:
Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP supported the judgment stating the following:
- It was submitted that there was no inconsistency in the version of the witnesses.
- She contended that there was a bullet injury on the back of the PW-1. She also stated that the MLC Ex.No. PW-8/A showed that an entrance wound of 1cm on the back in the lumber region and tattooing of the skin around the wound red colored.
- She further stated that there was also a small injury on the shoulder. She, therefore, stated that this supported the theory that two shots were fired.
- She also submitted that the fact that the weapon was not recovered and that no bullet has been recovered either from the spot or from the body of the accused cannot lead to a conclusion that the wound was self-inflicted.
Observation and judgment of the Court:
The Hon'ble bench of the court made the following observation:
- Nothing had been brought on record to show that PW-1 went to the extent of inflicting an injury on himself only to implicate the accused.
- The defence put forward by the accused cannot be believed as there is no corroboration.
- The fact that no independent witnesses joined or examined does not take away the credibility of the prosecution. It is well known that people shy away from becoming witnesses in court cases and the fact that nobody was prepared to come in the evidence would not lead to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved his case.
Based on the above the court held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Thereby the appeal was dismissed and the bail bond against the appellant was cancelled.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
