State v. Ramesh Bhurji and others), arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Acts & Sections
No.995/2006 (State Vs. Ramesh Bhurji and others), arising out of Case Crime No.88/2002, under Sections 395, 307, 149, 332, 342, 353, 420, 427 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Sakran, District - Sitapur, where the charges were framed against the accused persons Ramesh Bhurji, Ram Singh, Pradeep Verma, Santosh Verma, Sandeep Verma, Deshraj Verma, Ram Naresh, Guddu @ Rajesh Verma, Ram Chander, Virendra Kumar, Ram Khelawan, Sarvesh and Mata Prasad for the offence under Sections 394, 307 read with Section 149, 332, 342, 353, 420, 427 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. 4 CRLA No. - 139 of 2011
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined in oral evidence witnesses PW-1 Ramvilas Gupta, PW-2 Nafis Ahmad, PW-3 Harishchandra Srivastava, PW-4 Rajaram Gautam Naib Tehsildar, PW-5 Homeguard 2174 Narendra Kumar, PW-6 Homeguard 2202 Vijay Singh, PW-7 Mohanlal, PW-8 Sudhir Kumar Rungta, PW-9 Sub-Divisional Magistrate Chandrabhushan Tripathi, PW-10 retired Sub-Inspector Shyam Sunder Mishra, PW-11 S.I. Jayaram Gautam, PW-12 S.I. Shailesh Gaur, PW-13 Inspector Smt. Swarnjit Kaur, PW-14 Dr. Pradeep Kumar, PW-15 retired Inspector Shri Krishna Shukla, PW-16 Constable 278 Vivek Kumar Verma and PW-17 Dr. R.K. Srivastava.
9. These witnesses proved the documentary evidence as indicated above as also the prosecution case indicated in the F.I.R.
10. It would be apt to indicate here that it is well established that the evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage as being an injured witness, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he/she has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein [Vide: State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P.,
No.995/2006 (State Vs. Ramesh Bhurji and others), arising out of Case Crime No.88/2002, under Sections 395, 307, 149, 332, 342, 353, 420, 427 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Sakran, District - Sitapur, where the charges were framed against the accused persons Ramesh Bhurji, Ram Singh, Pradeep Verma, Santosh Verma, Sandeep Verma, Deshraj Verma, Ram Naresh, Guddu @ Rajesh Verma, Ram Chander, Virendra Kumar, Ram Khelawan, Sarvesh and Mata Prasad for the offence under Sections 394, 307 read with Section 149, 332, 342, 353, 420, 427 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. 4 CRLA No. - 139 of 2011
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined in oral evidence witnesses PW-1 Ramvilas Gupta, PW-2 Nafis Ahmad, PW-3 Harishchandra Srivastava, PW-4 Rajaram Gautam Naib Tehsildar, PW-5 Homeguard 2174 Narendra Kumar, PW-6 Homeguard 2202 Vijay Singh, PW-7 Mohanlal, PW-8 Sudhir Kumar Rungta, PW-9 Sub-Divisional Magistrate Chandrabhushan Tripathi, PW-10 retired Sub-Inspector Shyam Sunder Mishra, PW-11 S.I. Jayaram Gautam, PW-12 S.I. Shailesh Gaur, PW-13 Inspector Smt. Swarnjit Kaur, PW-14 Dr. Pradeep Kumar, PW-15 retired Inspector Shri Krishna Shukla, PW-16 Constable 278 Vivek Kumar Verma and PW-17 Dr. R.K. Srivastava.
9. These witnesses proved the documentary evidence as indicated above as also the prosecution case indicated in the F.I.R.
10. It would be apt to indicate here that it is well established that the evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage as being an injured witness, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he/she has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein [Vide: State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P.,