Indira Devi and Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 307 , Section 147 , Section 148 , Section 149
Contradictions between overt act alleged in FIR and subsequent deposition in court - Allegedly informant was assaulted by five persons out of which three were ladies (appellants) - FIR did not allege assault by appellants but in court victim mentioned that one appellant assaulted him with darat (short edged weapon) and other two hit him - Trial court chose to rely upon his version, ignoring the contradiction on the ground that he was an injured witness as proved by doctor - Conviction upheld by High Court. Held, though proposition of law that injured witness is generally reliable is correct but he must be subjected to scrutiny if circumstances and material suggest false implication by him. In this case, injury No. 2, as per medical evidence, was not by short edged weapon and was possible by a fall. Victim admitted that a male accused assaulted him and made him fall - There is no corresponding injury on his person to support the allegation of assault by appellants - Such allegation developed only in court and was without support from independent witnesses. Due to lack of convincing medical evidence against appellants, they could not be held guilty with the aid of Section 149 IPC - Courts below erred in ignoring the contradictions - Appeal allowed.
Topic(s)-Sec 307/147 , 148 , 149 of IPC - Contradictions between overt act