High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellants namely Nanhu aged about 56 years and Juggilal aged about 51 years both sons of Lokai and Ishwari aged about 54 s/o Baijnath challenging the judgment and order 11.08.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 4, District-Hardoi in Session Trial No. 444 of 2007, arising out of Crime No. 199 of 2007, under Sections- 307/504 IPC, P.S.-Mallawa, District-Hardoi, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellants named above, under Section 324 IPC for two years' rigorous imprisonment with default stipulation.

3. According to the case set up in written report (Ext.Ka.-1)given by the informant-Ram Roop s/o Chabba, r/o Village Mardan Nagar Majara Radaupur, Police Station-Mallawa, District-Hardoi, few days prior to the written report dated 19.02.2007 some hot talk took place between the informant Ram Roop and appellant Nanhu and thereafter on 10.02.2007 at about 8 PM the accused- appellants namely Nanhu, Juggilal and Ishwari armed with countrymade pistol reached at the door of the house of the informant and hurled abuses and on being opposed the accused Nanhu opened fire resulting fire arm injury in right armpit of the informant and on the interference of Prakash s/o Hari Ram,

Mishri Lal s/o Dharmu, who rushed the place of crime, the accused-appellants fled away.

4. On the basis of written report (Ext.Ka.-1) made by the informant/Ram Roop, an FIR (Ex. Ka-4) was registered as Crime No. 199 of 2007 under 2 Sections 307/504 IPC, against the accused-appellants, named above, at Police Station-Mallawa, District-Hardoi.

5. The Investigating Officer, prepared the cite plan (Ext.Ka.-6), recorded the statement(s) of witnesses of fact and also collected the documents viz. X- ray report, Injury report, Recovery of blood stained clothes, X-ray plates, the Investigating Officer, submitted the charge sheet (Ext.Ka.-8) against the accused-appellants under Sections 307/504 IPC.

6. After submission of charge sheet before Court of learned Magistrate the said case was committed to the Court of Sessions wherein it was registered as S.T. No. 199 of 2007 and charges were framed against the accused-appellants under Sections 324 IPC. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed trial.

7. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses namely Ram Roop/injured-informant (PW-1), Smt. Rukko (PW-2), Dr. R.K.Kanchan (PW-3), Dr. N.K.Bajpai (PW-4), Sub Inspector Anil Kumar Sagar (PW-5), Writer of FIR Sub Inspector Rajendra Prasad Tripathi (PW-6), who supported the story of prosecution.

8. 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 3 Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra,

Mishri Lal s/o Dharmu, who rushed the place of crime, the accused-appellants fled away.

4. On the basis of written report (Ext.Ka.-1) made by the informant/Ram Roop, an FIR (Ex. Ka-4) was registered as Crime No. 199 of 2007 under 2 Sections 307/504 IPC, against the accused-appellants, named above, at Police Station-Mallawa, District-Hardoi.

5. The Investigating Officer, prepared the cite plan (Ext.Ka.-6), recorded the statement(s) of witnesses of fact and also collected the documents viz. X- ray report, Injury report, Recovery of blood stained clothes, X-ray plates, the Investigating Officer, submitted the charge sheet (Ext.Ka.-8) against the accused-appellants under Sections 307/504 IPC.

6. After submission of charge sheet before Court of learned Magistrate the said case was committed to the Court of Sessions wherein it was registered as S.T. No. 199 of 2007 and charges were framed against the accused-appellants under Sections 324 IPC. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed trial.

7. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses namely Ram Roop/injured-informant (PW-1), Smt. Rukko (PW-2), Dr. R.K.Kanchan (PW-3), Dr. N.K.Bajpai (PW-4), Sub Inspector Anil Kumar Sagar (PW-5), Writer of FIR Sub Inspector Rajendra Prasad Tripathi (PW-6), who supported the story of prosecution.

8. 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 3 Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra,