The Supreme Court has reiterated that testimony in a Criminal Trial can't be wholly discarded merely because of minor contradictions and ommissions.
The full-judge Bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli was adjuduicating upon appeals filed against the Patna High Court judgment wherein it modified the judgment passed by the Trial Court convicting the appellants- accused under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 324 IPC and confirming their conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out the contradictions in statement of prosecution witnesses and vehemently submitted that the contradictory statements made by the prosecution witnesses cast a serious shadow of doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution story.
Contradictions in Testimony
The Court noted that it is not disputed that there are minor contradictions with respect to the time of the occurrence or injuries attributed but there is a constant narrative of the witnesses with regard to presence of appellants at the place of occurrence armed with guns and injury inflicted by them.
It cited Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & ANR Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 Latest Caselaw 464 SC the testimony of a witness in a criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omission.
It was held that only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses.
Medical Witness
The Court noted that the evidentiary value of a medical witness is very crucial to corroborate the case of prosecution.
"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. It has been reiterated by this court that the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great corroborative value as it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged."
Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act
The Court noted that to establish an offence under Sec 324 IPC, the presence of following ingredients is a must which are as follows:-
1. Voluntary hurt caused to another person by the accused, and
2. Such hurt was caused:
a. By any instrument used for shooting, cutting or stabbing, or any other instrument likely to cause death, or
b. By fire or other heated instruments, or
c. By poison or other corrosive substance, or
d. By any explosive substance, or
e. By a substance that is dangerous for the human body to swallow, inhale, or receive through blood, or
f. By an animal.
In the present case, the Court noted that appellants have caused hurt on the body of the informant using firearm on account of an altercation which took place between the appellants and the informant and thus charge under Sec 324 IPC stands established.
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 Court observed.
Case Title: ANUJ SINGH @ RAMANUJ SINGH @ SETH SINGH vs THE STATE OF BIHAR, MANOJ SINGH vs THE STATE OF BIHAR
Case Details: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 150 OF 2020 and CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 151 OF 2020
Coram: CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
