Delve into the complexities of a recent legal case where the High Court delves into the nuances of convictions under IPC and Arms Act. With a focus on the importance of material contradictions in witness statements and a deep dive into Section 324 IPC, the court’s legal analysis sheds light on crucial elements in criminal trials. Join us as we unravel the intricacies of legal judgments and their implications in the realm of criminal law.
Facts
- The appellants challenged the judgment passed by the High Court convicting them under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act.
- The Trial Court sentenced the appellants to three years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 27 Arms Act and five years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 307 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each.
- Two appellants further sentenced to three years Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 27 Arms Act with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each.
- Two sets of Criminal Appeals were filed before the High Court.
- One set of appeals was allowed by the High Court, and the appellants were exonerated.
- Conviction under Section 307 IPC was modified to Section 324 IPC by the High Court.
- The sentence awarded under Section 307 IPC was modified to two years Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and three months Simple Imprisonment in default.
- The conviction under Section 27 Arms Act was confirmed by the High Court.
- The Trial Court took cognizance in 2000, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in 2001.
- After analyzing evidence, the Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act.
- PW-7 Jagdish Singh witnessed Kumar Nandan Singh constructing his boundary wall when an altercation occurred between him and accused persons.
- Accused Manoj Singh and Anuj Singh came with guns, while Arvind Singh and Praveen Singh had lathis.
- The altercation led to the accused returning home.
- The injured informant, PW-6, reported the incident, stating he was shot at and assaulted by the accused persons.
- The FIR was registered two days later, charging the two appellants, Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh, under Section 307 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Also Read: Assessment of Loss of Earning Capacity in Motor Accident Claim
Issue
- The main issue in this appeal is the sustainability of the conviction of Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Also Read: Enhancement of Compensation in Workmen’s Compensation Act Case
Arguments
- Delay in submission of FIR raises doubts on prosecution story
- Contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses create doubt
- No material on record to indicate recovery of gun or bullets at the spot
- Learned Counsel for respondent and intervenor supported the High Court’s conviction of appellants.
- They argued that the witnesses’ statements were analyzed properly by the High Court.
- They stated that there was no illegality in the impugned order.
- They concluded that the decision does not need to be challenged.
Also Read: Determining Compensation in Motor Accident Claim Cases: Legal Analysis
Analysis
- The prosecution witnesses confirmed the altercation between the appellants and the informant over repairing a wall.
- All witnesses affirmed the presence of the two appellants at the scene of the incident on 10.10.1999.
- Hostile witnesses were PW-1 and PW-2.
- A witness, Janardhan Singh, testified to the occurrence taking place at 5:30 PM on 10.10.1999.
- The accused individuals arrived and began verbally assaulting Kumar Nandan Singh.
- Hurt can be inflicted voluntarily or through the use of dangerous weapons.
- Only contradictions in material particulars can discredit a witness’s testimony.
- Minor contradictions or omissions are not sufficient to discard a witness’s testimony.
- Court emphasized the importance of material contradictions while appreciating evidence in a criminal trial.
- Section 324 IPC deals with voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
- The offence under Section 324 IPC involves causing hurt to another person by means of dangerous weapons or substances.
- The punishment for the offence under Section 324 IPC is imprisonment for a period of three years, or fine, or both.
- To establish an offence under Section 324 IPC, the presence of specific ingredients such as voluntary hurt caused to another person by the accused using dangerous weapons or means is necessary.
Decision
- No good ground found to interfere with the impugned judgment
- The appeals lack merits
- Dismissal of the appeals
Case Title: ANUJ SINGH@ RAMANUJ SINGH@ SETH SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR (2022 INSC 463)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000150-000150 / 2020
