Date of the Judgment: 22 April 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 400
Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI., Krishna Murari, J., Hima Kohli, J.
Can a conviction for causing hurt with a firearm be upheld if there are minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, ultimately upholding the conviction of the accused. The court examined whether the High Court of Judicature at Patna correctly modified the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Section 324 IPC, while also confirming their conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The bench comprised Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, with the opinion authored by Justice Krishna Murari.
Case Background
On October 10, 1999, at approximately 5:30 PM, Kumar Nandan Singh (PW-6) was repairing a mud wall that had collapsed due to rain. His neighbor, Manoj Singh, objected to the repairs. Following an argument, Manoj Singh returned with Anuj Singh, both carrying guns. Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh also arrived with spears and lathis. Manoj and Anuj allegedly fired shots at Kumar Nandan Singh, injuring his leg and hand. Praveen and Arvind also allegedly assaulted him with spears and lathis. Hearing the gunshots, villagers gathered, and the four accused fled. Kumar Nandan Singh was taken to Dr. Himkar’s clinic, where his statement was recorded by the police.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| October 10, 1999, 5:30 PM | Incident occurs; Kumar Nandan Singh is injured. |
| October 10, 1999 | FIR registered based on Kumar Nandan Singh’s statement. |
| October 12, 1999 | FIR sent to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. |
| September 1, 2000 | Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate takes cognizance of the case. |
| January 16, 2001 | Case committed to the Court of Sessions. |
| December 22, 2006 | Trial Court convicts the accused. |
| January 16, 2018 | High Court modifies the conviction. |
| April 22, 2022 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeals. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. They were sentenced to five years of Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) under Section 307 IPC and three years RI under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The High Court modified the conviction of Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh from Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC to Section 324 IPC, reducing their sentence to two years RI with a fine of Rs. 5,000. However, the High Court upheld their conviction and sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The other two accused, Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh, were acquitted by the High Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states:
“324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to in hale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either de scription for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
To establish an offense under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the following must be proven:
- Voluntary hurt was caused to another person by the accused.
- Such hurt was caused by:
- An instrument for shooting, cutting, or stabbing.
- Any instrument likely to cause death.
- Fire or other heated instruments.
- Poison or other corrosive substance.
- Any explosive substance.
- A substance dangerous to the human body if swallowed, inhaled, or received through the blood.
- An animal.
Section 27 of the Arms Act deals with the punishment for using arms.
Arguments
The appellants argued that there was no evidence of gun recovery or seizure of bullets/pellets from the scene. They also raised concerns about the delay in submitting the FIR to the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court, which they claimed cast doubt on the prosecution’s story. The appellants also highlighted contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
The respondent and intervenor argued that the High Court correctly convicted the appellants based on witness statements and that there was no illegality in the impugned order.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ Argument |
|
| Respondent’s Argument |
|
| Intervenor’s Argument |
|
The innovativeness of the arguments lay in the appellants’ focus on the lack of material evidence (gun/bullet recovery) and the procedural delay in submitting the FIR, aiming to cast doubt on the prosecution’s narrative.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the conviction of Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act is sustainable.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction of Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act is sustainable? | Upheld | The court found that the prosecution witnesses consistently stated that the appellants were present at the scene with firearms and caused injury to the informant. Medical evidence corroborated the firearm injuries. Minor contradictions in witness statements were not considered sufficient to discredit their testimony. |
Authorities
The following authorities were considered by the court:
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra [2000] 8 SCC 457 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Minor contradictions in witness statements do not discredit their testimony. Only material contradictions can be used to discredit a witness. |
The following legal provisions were considered by the court:
| Provision | Statute | Description | How it was used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 324 | Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. | The court used this section to determine that the appellants had caused hurt using a firearm. |
| Section 27 | Arms Act | Punishment for using arms. | The court used this section to determine that the appellants were liable for using firearms. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| No recovery of gun or bullets/pellets. | The court did not find this to be a ground for acquittal, as the eyewitness testimony and medical evidence confirmed the use of firearms. |
| Delay in submitting the FIR to the court. | The court did not find this delay sufficient to discredit the prosecution’s case. |
| Contradictions in witness statements. | The court noted that the contradictions were minor and did not undermine the core of the prosecution’s case. |
| High Court correctly convicted the appellants. | The court agreed with this submission. |
| No illegality in the High Court’s order. | The court agreed with this submission. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra [2000] 8 SCC 457*: The Supreme Court followed this authority, emphasizing that minor contradictions in witness statements do not discredit their testimony. The Court reiterated that only material contradictions can be used to discredit a witness.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who clearly stated that the appellants were present at the scene with firearms and had caused injuries to the informant. The medical evidence provided by Dr. Himkar (PW-8) corroborated the fact that the injuries were caused by firearms. The court also noted that minor contradictions in the witnesses’ statements were not significant enough to discredit their testimonies. The court also took into consideration that there was a previous land dispute between the parties, which provided a motive for the crime.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Consistent witness testimony | 40% |
| Medical evidence corroboration | 30% |
| Minor contradictions not significant | 20% |
| Previous enmity/land dispute | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The court’s reasoning was based on a combination of factual evidence (witness testimonies and medical reports) and legal provisions (Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act).
The court considered the arguments made by the appellants, particularly regarding the lack of recovery of the firearm and the delay in submitting the FIR, but found them insufficient to overturn the conviction. The court emphasized that the consistent testimonies of the witnesses and the corroborating medical evidence were more compelling.
The Supreme Court stated, “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 Supreme Court also stated, “It is a well-known fact that the term “hurt” simply means performing an act which leads to physical pain, injury or any disease to a person.”
The Supreme Court further stated, “In the case at hand, it is evident from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the two appellants have caused hurt on the body of the informant, PW-6 by using firearm on account of an altercation which took place between the appellants and the informant PW-6.”
Key Takeaways
- Minor contradictions in witness statements are not sufficient to discredit their testimony if the core of their statements remains consistent.
- Medical evidence plays a crucial role in corroborating the prosecution’s case, especially in cases involving physical injuries.
- The presence of a motive, such as previous enmity, can strengthen the prosecution’s case.
- Conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act can be upheld when there is sufficient evidence of voluntarily causing hurt with a firearm.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that a conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act can be upheld based on consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence, even if there are minor contradictions in the witness statements. This case reinforces the principle that minor inconsistencies do not invalidate a witness’s testimony when the core facts remain consistent. There is no change in the previous position of the law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision to convict the appellants under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The court emphasized that the consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the corroborating medical evidence were sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, despite minor contradictions in the witness statements.