SC exempts 4 convicts from surrendering before Trial Court in 2013 assault case while it decides credibility of injured witness who improved version

Supreme Court: In a criminal special leave petition against a decision of the Calcutta High Court, wherein the High Court, relying upon the witness of the injured person and giving credibility to her husband’s witness and herself, partially allowed the convicts’ plea and refused to interfere with the sentence imposed on convict 1 and reduced the sentences of convicts 2 to 4 and upheld the conviction by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 448/325/34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, JJ. issued notice and exempted the convicts from surrendering.

A ccomplaint was registered in 2013 against five convicts for offences under Sections 448/325/326/307 of the IPC. The allegations were that the complainant’s minor son was sitting at a tea stall of the locality near his house when an altercation started between him and one of the convicts. with him. It was alleged that the minor son was injured through fists and blows and was also abused and threatened. When the complainant’s wife asked about the assault, they entered into a verbal altercation. Later, the convicts, armed with bamboo, henso and brick bats entered their house encircled and physically attacked the wife. Convict 1, with a brick bat, struck at the right eye causing serious bleeding injury over her right eye and nose. The complainant stated that his wife was under treatment and was also in a critical condition, as such there was a delay in lodging the complainant.

The Trial Court framed charges against all five convicts under Sections 448/34, 326/34, 307/34 of the IPC. The prosecution relied upon nine witnesses, including the complainant; the daughter of the complainant; and his wife (injured); his neighbour; and others. For the offence under Section 448/34 of the IPC, the convicts were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months; for the offence under Section 325/34 of the IPC, two of the convicts were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.10,000/; for the offence under Section 325/34 of the IPC, three others were sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months.

The convicts’ case was that the High Court fell into grave error by not interfering with their sentence, even after noting inherent contradictions in the statements of the Prosecution Witnesses and had placed major credence on the inconsistent statements of PW -1 (complainant/ husband of the injured) and PW — 4 (the injured herself). It was contended that the impugned judgment suffered from serious infirmities which were in direct violation of principles of natural justice and departure from settled principles of law; that if there are serious discrepancies in the statement of the victim and informant, the benefit shall be attributed to the convicts. It was also contended that the High Court erred in giving maximum credence to the statement of PW-4 because no attribution was given to the fact that there was a delay of 17 days in filing/registering the FIR.

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE