The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Vikram Nath opined that excessive number of injuries do not ipso facto lead to an inference about involvement of more than one person; rather the nature of injuries and similarity of their size/dimension would only lead to the inference that she was mercilessly and repeatedly stabbed by the same weapon and by the same person.
Facts
The appellant was having a love affair with the deceased but, got enraged when he saw the deceased talking to another boy; and caused multiple injuries to the deceased by a pointed knife, leading to her death. As per the post-mortem report as many as 12 injuries were found over the body of the deceased, including penetrating wounds on lungs and liver. The prosecution also examined PW-1 as an eyewitness, who asserted having seen the appellant repeatedly causing injuries on the person of the deceased.
Procedural History
The Trial Court held the appellant liable. In appeal, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and thus, the appellant had been convicted of offences u/s 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
Contentions Made
Appellant: There had been no evidence of matching of the blood allegedly found on the knife with that of the deceased; that PW-1 cannot be said to be a reliable witness, particularly when he neither raised any alarm nor tried to save the deceased; and that excessive number of injuries on the person of the deceased would suggest involvement of more than one person.
Respondent: They duly supported the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“The evidence of PW-1, being the eyewitness to the incident, remains unimpeachable and has been believed by the two Courts. His evidence cannot be discarded only because he allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being ferociously assaulted and stabbed. Excessive number of injuries do not ipso facto lead to an inference about involvement of more than one person; rather the nature of injuries and similarity of their size/dimension would only lead to the inference that she was mercilessly and repeatedly stabbed by the same weapon and by the same person.”
Judgment
The impugned judgment was set aside. The original writ petition stood dismissed. But this won’t prevent the original writ petitioners from initiating appropriate proceedings before the civil court for the damages/losses, if any suffered by them.
Case Name: Suresh Yadav @ Guddu vs The State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1349 OF 2013
Bench: Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Vikram Nath
Decided on: 25th February 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
