Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Assault with Sharp-Edged Weapon

Court affirms the evidentiary value of injured witness testimony and corroborates with medical evidence in Jagat Ram's case.

In a significant judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of Jagat Ram for inflicting injuries on Puran Chand using a sharp-edged weapon, a 'darat,' under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The court reaffirmed the critical evidentiary value of testimony from injured witnesses, which, when corroborated by medical evidence, stands as robust proof in criminal proceedings.

The case dates back to February 2, 2007, when Puran Chand, along with his wife Padma Devi, was extending invitations to villagers for a local deity's visit. On their way, they encountered Jagat Ram, who allegedly attacked Puran Chand with a darat, causing serious injuries to his shoulder. The incident was witnessed by Kamla Devi and Guddi Devi, who corroborated the victim's account. The medical examination confirmed the presence of incised wounds consistent with injuries caused by a sharp weapon.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla, presiding over the appeal, emphasized the reliability of injured witness testimony unless there are compelling reasons to doubt it. The judgment referenced several Supreme Court precedents, underscoring that such testimonies carry greater evidentiary value and should not be dismissed lightly.

Despite arguments from the defense questioning the credibility of the testimonies due to minor discrepancies and relationships among witnesses, the court found no substantial grounds to discredit the statements. The presence of Padma Devi was deemed natural and consistent with the circumstances, and her testimony was accepted alongside other corroborative evidence.

The recovery of the weapon at Jagat Ram's instance, although not preceded by a disclosure statement, was deemed admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, further strengthening the prosecution's case. The court relied on established jurisprudence affirming that recovery can corroborate prosecution evidence even without a prior disclosure statement.

The court upheld the trial court's decision to sentence Jagat Ram to two years of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, finding the punishment appropriate given the severity and unprovoked nature of the assault.

The judgment reinforces the principle that injured witness testimony, corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, forms a strong basis for conviction in criminal cases, ensuring that justice is served even amidst challenges on evidentiary grounds.

Bottom Line:

Conviction under Section 324 IPC upheld - Injured witness testimony carries higher evidentiary value unless compelling reasons exist to doubt its credibility - Presence of injured eyewitness at the scene of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions - Recovery of weapon at the instance of the accused can corroborate prosecution evidence even if not preceded by a disclosure statement.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Section 324, Indian Evidence Act Sections 6, 8, Criminal Procedure Code Section 313

Jagat Ram v. State of H.P., (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2791797