Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 324, 307 r/w s. 34 – Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means – Altercation between the one of the appellant and the informant, over a land dispute – Appellants armed with guns fired upon the informant which hit his left foot and the right arm – Other two accused assaulted the informant with spear and lathis – Trial court convicted the appellants u/s. 307 rw s. 34 and s. 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced accordingly – High Court modified the conviction u/s. 307/34 to s. 324 and awarded two years rigorous imprisonment with fine, while confirming the conviction and sentence u/s. 27 of the Arms Act – On appeal, held: Defence of plea of alibi by one of the appellant does not inspire confidence – Testimony of the witnesses that the appellants were present at the place of occurrence armed with guns and they caused the injury on informant cannot be discarded because of minor contradictions – Medical evidence of the doctor corroborates that the injuries on the informant were caused by firearms – Evidence of prosecution witnesses that the two appellants caused hurt on the body of the informant by using firearm on account of an altercation – Charge of s. 324 of voluntarily causing injuries by firearm-dangerous weapon, established against the appellants, and as such they cannot escape the punishment for using arms prescribed by s. 27 of the Arms Act – Thus, the High Court rightly convicted the appellants for the offences punishable u/s. 324 and s. 27 of the Arms Act – Criminal trial.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A bare perusal of the deposition of the witnesses prove that the two appellants were present at the place of occurrence with a firearm and injury was caused to the informant due to the act of the appellants. The defence of plea of alibi taken by appellant M that he was posted at Islampur Block does not inspire confidence as there is no attendance register maintained by the office and the prosecution witness has categorically stated that the appellant M was present at the place of occurrence. [Para 16][1033-D-E]
1.2 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. [Para 17][1033-E-G]
1.3 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. 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. PW-8, doctor who examined the informant has clearly stated that all the injuries attributed on the informant were caused by firearms and that tattooing may not appear over the wound (injured area) if a person fires from 6-7 ft. [Para 18][1034-D-F]
1.4 A detailed examination of prosecution witnesses clearly establishes that there was altercation between Informant and the two appellants with respect to preventing the Informant from repairing his wall; that all the witnesses unequivocally confirmed the presence of the two appellants at the place of occurrence; that all the eyewitness have confirmed that the two appellants were armed with firearm; that the medical evidence of PW-8, doctor corroborates that injuries inflicted on the Informant were firearm injuries; and that the injuries were inflicted on the nonvital part of the body of the Informant. [Para 19][1034-F-H]
1.5 The term “hurt” simply means performing an act which leads to physical pain, injury or any disease to a person. At times, hurt may be caused voluntarily or it can by caused by using dangerous weapons or mean. A person will be liable to have caused hurt voluntarily through dangerous weapons and means under Section 324 IPC. When a person commits an offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons and means under Section
324 IPC, then such person shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of three years, or with fine. [Paras 20-21][1035-B-C; 1036-B]
1.6 It is evident from the evidence of prosecution witnesses 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. It also stands corroborated from the evidence of the prosecution witness that 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. 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. [Para 22][1036-B-E]
1.7 The High Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 324 IPC and Section
27 of the Arms Act. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. [Para 23][1036-E]
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 457 : [2000] 3 Suppl. SCR
104 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.