Case Note & Summary
The case arose from an incident during the intervening night of 6/7 April 1986 in village Bichhor, Haryana. The appellant Rehmat was convicted by the Designated Court, Faridabad at Gurgaon in two separate trials under Sections 307 and 393 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that at about 3:30/4:00 a.m. on 7 April 1986, complainant Padam Singh saw Rehmat running near his room and chased him for about three killas; Rehmat turned and fired a country-made pistol, injuring the complainant's right leg. The complainant grappled with him; Vijay Singh, Hari Singh and Fateh Ram arrived and apprehended Rehmat along with a 12 bore country-made pistol and a belt with six live cartridges. The complainant was taken to Primary Health Centre, Punchanama, and a ruqqa led to registration of FIR. Rehmat was later arrested and the weapon and cartridges were seized. The appellant denied the charges, pleaded false implication due to land and canal water dispute between his relative Ashraf and the complainant's father, and claimed he was assaulted by the complainant party with a danda, sustaining injuries, and that he acted in self-defence. The trial court convicted him, sentencing five years RI on each count under IPC, sentences concurrent. On appeal, the appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution failed to explain 13 injuries found on the appellant when he was examined by Dr. D.P. Gupta on 7 April 1986 at 4:10 p.m., including seven lacerated wounds; that the defence version of assault with danda was more probable; and that the recovery of pistol and cartridges was not credible. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that Padam Singh and Fateh Ram did not explain the injuries on the appellant, and that the prosecution gave no explanation for how the appellant sustained these injuries while in custody from the time of arrest. The Court held that the defence version of assault by the complainant with a danda was more probable. Additionally, the complainant had first gone to the PHC but did not disclose the assailant's name to the doctor, though in a medico-legal case the doctor should record history; the name was disclosed only later in the FIR, supporting the appellant's claim of later implication. The Court found the prosecution story improbable, especially the claim that the complainant got up early and saw appellant running at 3:30 a.m. For the Arms Act/TADA conviction, the Court found the evidence of Fateh Ram, Inspector Nafe Singh and the seizure panchnamas regarding pistol and belt with six live cartridges suffered from the same infirmity and did not inspire confidence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed both appeals, quashed the convictions and sentences, and cancelled the bail bonds.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Burden of Proof - Prosecution Must Explain Injuries on Accused - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 307 and 393 - Appellant was apprehended at the spot and found with 13 injuries including 7 lacerated wounds but the prosecution gave no explanation for these injuries; the defence version that the complainant assaulted him with a danda was held more probable and consistent with the injuries; Held that where the prosecution suppresses the true version and fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused while in custody from the time of incident, conviction based on doubtful evidence cannot be sustained (Paras 8-9). B) Evidence - Medical Evidence - Failure to Disclose Assailant's Name to Doctor Creates Doubt - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 307 and 393 - Complainant first went to Primary Health Centre but did not disclose the name of the assailant to the doctor, although in a medico-legal case the doctor is supposed to record the history of the injured; the name was disclosed only later in the FIR; this supported the appellant's contention that he was implicated later; Held that the prosecution case was improbable and the conviction could not be sustained (Para 10). C) Arms Law - Recovery Evidence - Credibility of Seizure Panchnamas and Witness Testimony - Arms Act, 1959, Section 25 and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, Section 6 - Evidence of Fateh Ram, Inspector Nafe Singh and seizure panchnamas regarding pistol and belt with six live cartridges suffered from the same infirmity as the main incident and did not inspire confidence; Held that the conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 was unsustainable and set aside (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the convictions under Sections 307 and 393 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 could be sustained when the prosecution failed to explain injuries on the appellant and the recovery of pistol and cartridges was not credible.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed Criminal Appeals Nos. 178-179 of 1989, quashed and set aside the impugned judgments and orders of the Designated Court, and cancelled the bail bonds of the appellant.
Law Points
- Prosecution must explain injuries on accused when accused was apprehended on spot and remained in custody
- failure to explain injuries makes defence version more probable and conviction cannot stand
- in medico-legal case
- doctor should record history of injured including assailant name
- failure to disclose assailant name to doctor creates doubt about later implication
- recovery evidence must be credible and inspire confidence
- if recovery evidence suffers from same infirmity as main incident
- conviction under Arms Act/TADA cannot be sustained
- right of private defence if accused was assaulted with danda causing injuries
