Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 13.10.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 18 November, 2025
2025:HHC:38824
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No.214 of 2014
Reserved on: 13.10.2025
Date of Decision: 18.11.2025
.
Raj Kumar @ Rajesh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 yes
rt
For the Petitioner : Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj,
Advocate.
For the Respondent/ : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy
State Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present revision is directed against the judgment 13.06.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which judgment of conviction dated 16.03.2013 and order of sentence dated 23.03.2013, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahul Spiti at Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (learned Trial Court), were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred 1 . Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 2 2025:HHC:38824 to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) .
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 326, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of (IPC).It was asserted that Jitender Thakur (PW-1) was running a shop in the name and style of Chandigarh Tailor at Sheglu rt Bazar. He was sewing the clothes on 21.05.2007 in his shop.
Raj Kumar @ Raju (accused) entered his shop at about 4:00 p.m. The accused was armed with a 'Darat'. He threatened to kill the informant. Sangat Ram (PW-2) came to the spot and tried to pacify the accused; however, the accused inflicted a blow with a Darat to Sangat Ram. Sangat Ram (PW-2) averted the blow with his hands. The accused inflicted a Darat blow upon the informant. The informant also averted the blow with his left hand. The informant shouted for help. Kishan Chand, Ati Bahadur, Dhana Devi (PW-7) and Maya Devi (PW-3) reached the spot. The accused damaged the machines and the clothes lying in the informant's shop. The informant sustained a loss of ₹40,000/-. The matter was reported to the ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 3 2025:HHC:38824 police. An entry No. 22 was recorded in the Police Station. HC Uttam Chand (PW-8) went to the spot to verify the .
correctness of the information. He recorded the statement (Ext.PW-1/A) of the informant and sent it to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-5/A) was registered. HC Uttam Chand (PW-8) investigated the matter. He prepared the site of plan (Ext.PW8/A). He seized the damaged articles vide memo (Ext.PW-7/A). The accused produced a 'Darat' (Ext.P-3), rt which was seized vide memo (Ext.PW-3/A). Dr Suresh Thakur (PW-6) medically examined Jitender Thakur (PW-1) and found that he had sustained grievous and simple injuries, which could have been caused by means of a Darat. He issued his MLC (Ext.PW-6/A).Dr Suresh Thakur also examined Sangat Ram (PW-2) and found that he had sustained simple and grievous injuries which could have been caused within 50 to 60 minutes by a sharp and heavy weapon like a Darat. He issued his MLC (Ext.PW6/B). The injured Sangat Ram (PW-2) and Jitender Thakur (PW-1) produced their blood-stained shirts, which were sealed in separate parcels. Seal impressions (Ext.PW-8/C and Ext.PW8/D) were taken on separate pieces of cloth. The parcels were seized vide memos ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 4 2025:HHC:38824 (Ext.PW-1/B and Ext. PW-2/A). Photographs of the spot (Ext.P1 to P4) whose negatives are Ext. P5 to Ext. P8) were .
taken. Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.
3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to of summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged with the commission of offences punishable under rt Sections 452, 326 and 427 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove its case. Jitender Thakur (PW-1) and Sangat Ram (PW-2) are the injured; Maya Devi (PW-3) did not support the prosecution's case. HHC Shobha Ram (PW-4) proved the entry in the daily diary. ASI Chaman Lal (PW-5) signed the F.I.R. Dr Suresh Thakur (PW-6) medically examined the victims. Smt.Dhana Devi (PW-7) is an eyewitness and a witness to recovery. HHC Uttam Chand (PW-8) investigated the matter.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 52025:HHC:38824
5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution's case in its .
entirety. He stated that a false case was made against him, and the witnesses falsely deposed against him. He did not produce any evidence in defence.
6. Learned Trial Court held that the relationship of between the parties was strained. The victim specifically stated that the accused had entered into the informant's shop rt armed with a Darat and inflicted injury on him and Sangat Ram. Dhanna Devi (PW-7) and medical evidence corroborated this version. Therefore, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 326 and 427 of the IPC and sentenced him as under:
Sections Sentences
452 of IPC The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years, pay a fine of ₹2000/- and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months.
326 of IPC The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, pay a fine of ₹2000/- and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 62025:HHC:38824 427 of IPC The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, pay a fine of ₹500/- and, in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
.
It was ordered that all the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the of accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (learned rt Appellate Court). Learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the testimonies of witnesses were satisfactory. These were corroborated by the medical examination. The enmity is a double-edged weapon: while it furnishes a motive for false implication, it also furnishes a motive for the commission of a crime. Maya Devi did not support the prosecution's case. She was the informant's wife and had strained relations with him.
She could not be expected to depose in the informant's favour, and her testimony was insufficient to discard the prosecution's case. The judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court were sustainable. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 72025:HHC:38824
8. Being aggrieved by the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below, the accused has filed the .
present revision, asserting that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate the material in its proper perspective.
There were contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which made the prosecution's case of highly suspect. Statement of Sangat Ram (PW-2) made in the Court was contrary to his statement before the police, which rt made him an unreliable witness. Maya Devi (PW-3) specifically stated that no Darat was produced in her presence, and there was no blood on it. Her testimony made the prosecution's case regarding the recovery doubtful. Darat was not sent to FSL to determine whether it contained any blood. The dispute between the parties is pending before the Courts, and the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.
9. I have heard Mr Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 82025:HHC:38824
10. Mr Naveen K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that .
he was falsely implicated. The petitioner had not caused any injury to any person, and he was falsely implicated due to the enmity. The learned Courts below erred in convicting and sentencing the accused; therefore, he prayed that the present of appeal be allowed and the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below be set aside.
11. rtMr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the testimonies of the victim/injured were corroborated by the statement of Dhana Devi (PW-7) as well as the recovery of Darat. Medical Officer categorically stated that injuries noticed by him could have been caused by a sharp, heavy weapon like a Darat. The matter was reported to the police immediately, and there was no deliberation or concoction. This Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below. Hence, he prayed that the present revision be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 92025:HHC:38824
12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the .
records carefully.
13. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204:
(2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 348: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 786 that a of revisional court is not an appellate court and it can only rectify the patent defect, errors of jurisdiction or the law. It rt was observed at page 207:-
"10.Before adverting to the merits of the contentions, at the outset, it is apt to mention that there are concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by two courts after a detailed appreciation of the material and evidence brought on record. The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction like the appellate court, and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short "CrPC") vests jurisdiction to satisfy itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual cases. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings."::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 10
2025:HHC:38824
14. This position was reiterated in State of Gujarat v.
DilipsinhKishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688: 2023 SCC OnLine SC .
1294, wherein it was observed at page 695:
"14.The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court under Section 397 CrPC, which vests the court with the power to call for and examine records of an inferior court, is for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularities of any proceeding or order of made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in such proceedings.
15.It would be apposite to refer to the judgment of this rt Court inAmit Kapoorv.Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460: (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687: (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986, where scope of Section 397 has been considered and succinctly explained as under: (SCC p. 475, paras 12-13) "12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error, and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which, upon the face of it, bear a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored, or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 11 2025:HHC:38824 classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits.
13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very .
limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the built-in restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the of charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in the exercise of its rt revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even the framing of the charge is a much-advanced stage in the proceedings under CrPC."
15. It was held in Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, (2018) 8 SCC 165: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 544: (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 37: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 651 that it is impermissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its conclusions in the absence of any perversity. It was observed at page 169:
"12.This Court has time and again examined the scope of Sections 397/401 CrPC and the grounds for exercising the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. InState of Keralav.PuttumanaIllathJathavedan Namboodiri, (1999) 2 SCC 452: 1999 SCC (Cri) 275], while considering the scope of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, this Court has laid down the following:
(SCC pp. 454-55, para 5) ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 12 2025:HHC:38824
5. ... In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or .
order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting a miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court, nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate of for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the rt Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise amount to a gross miscarriage of justice. On scrutinising the impugned judgment of the High Court from the aforesaid standpoint, we have no hesitation in concluding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the conviction of the respondent by reappreciating the oral evidence. ..."
13.Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied on by the High Court is the judgment of this Court inSanjaysinhRamrao Chavanv.Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, (2015) 3 SCC 123: (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 19]. This Court held that the High Court, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. The following has been laid down in para 14: (SCC p. 135) "14. ... Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 13 2025:HHC:38824 relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant .
to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be of revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where rt the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
16. This position was reiterated in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 40: (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 309: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 13, wherein it was observed at page 205:
"16.It is well settled that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record.
17.As held by this Court in Southern Sales & Servicesv.Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH, (2008) 14 SCC 457, it is a well-established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not interfere even if a wrong order is passed by a court having jurisdiction, in the ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 14 2025:HHC:38824 absence of a jurisdictional error. The answer to the first question is, therefore, in the negative."
17. This position was reiterated in Sanjabij Tari v.
.
Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, wherein it was observed:
"27.It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings [See:Bir of Singh(supra)]. This Court is of the view that it is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record. As held by this Court inSouthern Sales & Servicesv.Sauermilch Design and Handels rt GMBH,(2008) 14 SCC 457, it is a well-established principle of law that the Revisional Court will not interfere, even if a wrong order is passed by a Court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a jurisdictional error.
28.Consequently, this Court is of the view that in the absence of perversity, it was not open to the High Court in the present case, in revisional jurisdiction, to upset the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court.
18. The present revision has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
19. Dr Suresh Thakur (PW-6) examined Jitender Thakur (PW-1) and Sangat Ram (PW-2) and found simple and grievous injuries on their person, which could have been inflicted within 50 to 60 minutes with a sharp, heavy weapon like a Darat. Therefore, his testimony establishes that Jitender ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 15 2025:HHC:38824 Thakur (PW-1) and Sangat Ram (PW-2) had sustained injuries. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj .
Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) 3 SCC 125: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 13 that the testimony of the injured witness has to be accepted as correct unless there are compelling circumstances to doubt such a statement. It was observed:
of "22.The importance of an injured witness in a criminal trial cannot be overstated. Unless there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by the defence to doubt such a witness, this has to be accepted as rt extremely valuable evidence in a criminal trial.
23.InBalu Sudam Khaldev.State of Maharashtra[Balu Sudam Khaldev.State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365:
2023 SCC OnLine SC 355], this Court summed up the principles which are to be kept in mind when appreciating the evidence of an injured eyewitness.
This Court held as follows: (SCC para 26) "26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
26.1.The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. 26.2.Unless it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. 26.3. The evidence of the injured witness has greater evidentiary value, and unless compelling ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 16 2025:HHC:38824 reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
26.4.The evidence of the injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some .
embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
26.5.If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishment in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of the injured, of but not the whole evidence.
26.6.The broad substratum of the prosecution rt version must be taken into consideration, and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with the passage of time should be discarded." (emphasis supplied)
20. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Versus Smt. Noorie Alias Noor Jahan and Others, (1996) 9 SCC 104, that while assessing the evidence of an eyewitness, the Court must adhere to two principles, namely, whether, in the circumstances of the case, the eyewitness could be present and whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable. It was observed:-
"7. The High Court having acquitted the accused persons on appreciation of the evidence, we have ourselves scrutinised the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3. The conclusion is irresistible that their evidence on material particulars has been brushed aside by the High Court by entering into the realm of conjecture and fanciful speculation without even discussing the ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 17 2025:HHC:38824 evidence, more particularly the evidence relating to the basic prosecution case. While assessing and evaluating the evidence of eyewitnesses, the Court must adhere to two principles, namely, whether, in the circumstances of the .
case, it was possible for the eyewitness to be present at the scene and whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable. The High Court, in our opinion, has failed to observe the aforesaid principles and, in fact, has misappreciated the evidence, which has caused a gross miscarriage of justice. The credibility of a witness has to be decided by referring to of his evidence and finding out how he has fared in cross- examination and what impression is created by his evidence, taken insofar as the context of the case, and not by entering into the realm of conjecture and rt speculation. On scrutinising the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 and 3 we find they are consistent with one another so far as the place of occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon of assault used by the accused persons, the fact of dragging of the dead body of the deceased from the place to the grove and nothing has been brought out in their cross-examination to impeach their testimony. The aforesaid oral evidence fully corroborates the medical evidence. In that view of the matter, we unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against the accused persons and the High Court committed an error in acquitting the three respondents, namely Inder Dutt, Raghu Raj and Bikram." (emphasis supplied)
21. This position was reiterated in Rajan v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1952, wherein it was observed:
"33.When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 18
2025:HHC:38824 "(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
.
(b) Unless it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value, and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded of lightly.
(d) The evidence of an injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
rt (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of the injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration, and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
34.In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 19 2025:HHC:38824 their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put .
forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence. (See:Balu Sudam Khaldev.State of Maharashtra:(2023) 13 SCC 365)
22. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in of State of Punjab vs. Hari Singh 1974 (3) SCR 725 that a person speaking on oath should be presumed to be a truthful witness rt unless there is something inherently improbable in his testimony. It was observed:
"The ordinary presumption is that a witness speaking under an oath is truthful unless and until he is shown to be untruthful or unreliable in any particular respect. The High Court, reversing this approach, seems to us to have assumed that witnesses are untruthful unless it is proved that they are telling the truth. Witnesses, solemnly deposing on oath in the witness box during a trial upon a grave charge of murder, must be presumed to act with a full sense of responsibility for the consequences of what they state. It may be that what they say is so very unlikely or unnatural or unreasonable that it is safer not to act upon it or even to disbelieve them."
23. Dr Suresh Thakur (PW-6) admitted in his cross-
examination that injuries noticed by him could have been caused by way of a fall on a sharp-edged object. This is an ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 20 2025:HHC:38824 alternative hypothesis and will not make the prosecution's case suspect. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court .
in Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395: 2003 SCC OnLine SC 1086, that when the testimonies of the witnesses are found credible, the medical evidence pointing to alternative possibilities is not sufficient to discard the of prosecution's case. It was observed at page 404:
"22.It is trite that where the eyewitnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion rt pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence, the importance and primacy of the quality of the trial process. Eyewitnesses' accounts would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility, which should not be adversely prejudged, making any other evidence, including the medical evidence, the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts; the "credit" of the witnesses; their performance in the witness box;
their power of observation, etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation."
24. Dr Suresh Thakur (PW-6) stated that fingers would have been removed by a heavy blow of Darat. It was submitted that the statement of this witness makes the ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 21 2025:HHC:38824 prosecution's case suspect because the fingers were not removed. This submission will not help the accused. The .
Medical Officer has only stated in his opinion that the impact of the blow would have been dependent upon the force used, the position of the assailant and the victim, and the efforts made by the victim to save himself. It is an admitted case of of the prosecution that both the victims had tried to avoid the infliction of injury by Darat by raising their hands. They rt would have moved and would not have remained on the spot to help the accused to inflict injuries upon them. Therefore, the opinion of the Medical Officer that fingers would have been removed by a forceful blow of Darat cannot be used to discard the prosecution's case.
25. It was submitted that the Darat and blood-stained shirts were not sent to FSL to determine whether they contained human blood. This submission will not help the defence. The failure to send Darat to the FSL would be a cause of a defective investigation, which is not sufficient to acquit the accused. It was held in Karnel Singh vs. State 1995 (5) SCC 518 that the prosecution's case cannot be doubted due to the defective investigation because the Investigating Officer is ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 22 2025:HHC:38824 not under the control of the complainant, and the complainant cannot be penalised for the negligence of the .
Investigating Officer. It was held:
"4. We have very carefully scrutinised the evidence, having regard to the fact that (PW 6) the Investigation Officer had not taken the care expected of him. He did not record the statements of the two witnesses, nor did he refer to the attachment of the 'Chaddi' in his oral of evidence. That was a very vital piece of evidence to which little or no attention was paid. If the seizure of that article was properly proved, the article with semen stains would have lent strong corroboration to the rt evidence of the prosecutrix. There is no doubt that the investigation was casual and defective. But despite these deficiencies, both the Courts below have recorded a conviction. The question is: are they right?
5. Notwithstanding our unhappiness regarding the nature of the investigation, we have to consider whether the evidence on record, even on strict scrutiny, establishes the guilt. In cases of defective investigation, the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence, but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would be tantamount to playing into the hands of the Investigating Officer if the investigation is designedly defective. Any Investigating Officer, in fairness to the prosecutrix as well as the accused, would have recorded the statements of the two witnesses and would have drawn up a proper seizure memo in regard to the 'Chaddi'. That is the reason why we have said that the investigation was slipshod and defective.
6. We must admit that the defective investigation gave us some anxious moments, and we were at first blush inclined to think that the accused was prejudiced. But ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 23 2025:HHC:38824 on closer scrutiny, we have reason to think that the loopholes in the investigation were left to help the accused at the cost of the poor prosecutrix, a labourer. To acquit solely on that ground would be adding insult .
to injury."
26. This position was reiterated in Sachin Kumar Singhraha v. State of M.P. (2019) 8 SCC 371 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 363, and it was held:
of "At this juncture, we would like to recall that it is well-settled that criminal justice should not become a casualty because of the minor mistakes committed by the Investigating Officer. We may hasten to add here rt that if the Investigation Officer suppresses the real incident by creating certain records to make a new case altogether, the Court would definitely strongly come against such action of the Investigation Officer. There cannot be any dispute that the benefit of doubt arising out of major flaws in the investigation would create suspicion in the mind of the Court, and consequently, such an inefficient investigation would accrue to the benefit of the accused. As observed by this Court in the case of State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj, (2000) (1) SCC 247, a criminal trial cannot be equated with a mock scene from a stunt film. Such a trial is conducted to ascertain the guilt or innocence of the accused arraigned, and in arriving at a conclusion about the truth, the courts are required to adopt a rational approach and judge the evidence by its intrinsic worth and the animus of the witnesses. The courts are not obliged to make efforts either to give latitude to the prosecution or loosely construe the law in favour of the accused. The traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to be replaced by a rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial."::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 24
2025:HHC:38824
27. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srichand K. Khetwani v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 SCC OnLine .
SC 32 : (1967) 1 SCR 595: AIR 1967 SC 450: 1967 Cri LJ 414 :
(1967) 2 SCJ 178 that no adverse inference can be drawn for failure to collect the evidence. It was observed:
8. Further, an adverse inference against the prosecution can be drawn only if it withholds certain of evidence and not merely on account of its failure to obtain certain evidence. When no such evidence has been obtained, it cannot be said what that evidence rtcould have been and therefore, no question of presuming that that evidence would have been against the prosecution, under Section 114, illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, can arise.
28. This position was reiterated in Chand Khan v. State of U.P., (1995) 5 SCC 448: 1995 SCC (Cri) 915, wherein it was observed:
"In the FIR, which was lodged within two hours of the incident, the substratum of the entire prosecution case finds place, including a statement that during the incident, Sm. Naeema Parveen had, in defending herself, given a blow to one of the accused with a vegetable-cutting knife. In view of the above statement recorded in the FIR, the Investigation Officer (PW 16) ought to have taken steps to seize the knife even if PW 5 had not produced it for, one of the essential requisites of a proper investigation is the collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence and that necessarily includes, in a case of assault, seizure of the weapon of offence, but then failure to collect evidence and failure to produce ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 25 2025:HHC:38824 evidence collected during investigation at the trial carry two different connotations and consequences. While the former may entitle the court to hold the investigation to be perfunctory or tainted, affecting .
the entire trial, in the case of the latter, the court may legitimately draw a presumption in accordance with Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. As the case presented before us comes under the first category of failures, we have to find out whether we will be justified in discarding the prosecution case solely for the remissness of the Investigating Officer in seizing of the knife. The consistent and reliable evidence of the eyewitnesses, coupled with the nature of injuries sustained by some of them and Chand Khan, and the fact that in the FIR it has clearly been stated that one rt of the miscreants had been assaulted by a vegetable cutting knife, do not persuade us to answer the question in the affirmative."
29. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be doubted because of the failure to send the Darat and shirts of the victims to FSL.
30. Jitender Thakur (PW-1) stated that he was sewing the clothes in his shop on 21.05.2007. The accused came to his shop armed with Darat and threatened to kill him (informant). Sangat Ram (PW-2) came to the spot and tried to pacify the accused; however, the accused inflicted blows on him and Sangat Ram (PW-2). He sustained injuries on his left arm. The accused also damaged the informant's sewing machine and clothes. He reported the matter to the police.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 262025:HHC:38824 He identified the Darat and shirt. He stated in his cross-
examination that he had filed a complaint against the .
accused before the learned SDM. He was not aware that the accused was acquitted in those cases. He admitted that he was not on speaking terms with the accused. There were many shops in Sheglu Bazar. The accused had brought the of clothes of his wife for getting them pressed 7-8 years before his deposition. He denied that he had thrown the clothes rt outside, which led to the filing of the complaint before the learned SDM. The bazaar was being closed. He was not aware that there was a huge rush at the fair. He volunteered to say that he was sewing clothes inside the shop. He denied that he had a dispute with some boys and sustained injuries in the incident. He denied that a false case was made against the accused due to enmity.
31. His statement is corroborated by Sangat Ram (PW-2), who stated that he had rented a shop to the informant Jitender Kumar (PW-1). He heard some noise on 21.05.2007 at about 4:00 p.m. He went to the spot and saw that the accused was quarrelling with the informant. He tried to pacify the accused, but the accused inflicted a blow ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 27 2025:HHC:38824 upon him and the informant. The accused also damaged the articles lying in the shop and threw the clothes outside the .
shop. He was taken to the hospital. He identified his thumb impression on the MLC. He also identified his shirt and Darat. He stated in his cross-examination that the fair was over at the time of the incident. His house was located in the of Committee area. He did not know that the cases were pending between the informant and the accused. He denied rt that he had enmity with the accused. He denied that the victim quarrelled during the fair and sustained injuries. He denied that the accused had not caused any injury to him or the informant.
32. The testimonies of these witnesses corroborated each other. There is nothing in their cross-examination to show that they were making false statements. The informant admitted that the cases were pending between him and the accused. This will not help the accused because the learned Trial Court had rightly held that enmity is a double-edged weapon:while it furnishes the motive for false implication, it also furnishes a motive for the commission of a crime.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 282025:HHC:38824 Therefore, not much advantage can be derived from the enmity between the parties.
.
33. It was submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses with reference to the statement recoded by the police. This submission will not help the accused. The attention of the witnesses was not of drawn towards the previous inconsistent statements. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Binay Kumar rt Singh Versus State of Bihar, 1997 (1) SCC 283, that if a witness is to be contradicted with his previous statement, his attention must be drawn towards it. It was observed: -
"11. The credit of a witness can be impeached by proof of any statement which is inconsistent with any part of his evidence in Court. This principle is delineated in S. 155 (3) of the Evidence Act, and it must be borne in mind when reading S. 145, which consists of two limbs.
It is provided in the first limb of S.145 that a witness may be cross-examined as to the previous statement made by him without such writing being shown to him but the second limb provides that "if it is intended to contradict him by the writing his attention must before the writing can be provided, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him." There is thus a distinction between the two vivid limbs, though subtle it may be. The first limb does not envisage impeaching the credit of a witness, but it merely enables the opposite party to cross-examine the witness with reference to the previous statements ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 29 2025:HHC:38824 made by him. He may at that stage succeed in eliciting materials to his benefit through such cross- examination, even without resorting to the procedure laid down in the second limb. But if the witness .
disowns having made any statement which is inconsistent with his present stand, his testimony in Court on that score would not be vitiated until the cross-examiner proceeds to comply with the procedure prescribed in the second limb of S. 145.
12. In Bhagwan Singh's case (AIR 1952 SC 214), Vivian Bose, J. pointed out in paragraph 25 that during the of cross-examination of the witnesses concerned, the formalities prescribed by S. 145 are complied with. The cross-examination, in that case, indicated that every circumstance intended to be used as a contradiction rt was put to him point by point and passage by passage. Learned Judges were called upon to deal with an argument that witnesses' attention should have been specifically drawn to that passage in addition thereto. Their Lordships were, however, satisfied in that case that the procedure adopted was in substantial compliance with S. 145, and hence held that all that is required is that the witness must be treated fairly and must be afforded a reasonable opportunity of explaining the contradictions after his attention has been drawn to them in a fair and reasonable manner.
On the facts of that case, there is no dispute with the proposition laid therein.
13. So long as the attention of PW 32 (Sukhdev Bhagat) was not drawn to the statement attributed to him as recorded by DW-10 (Nawal Kishore Prasad), we are not persuaded to reject the evidence of PW-32 that he gave Ex. 14 statement at the venue of occurrence and that he had not given any other statement earlier thereto."
34. A similar view was taken in Alauddin v. State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 760, wherein it was observed:
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 302025:HHC:38824 "7.When the two statements cannot stand together, they become contradictory statements. When a witness makes a statement in his evidence before the Court which is inconsistent with what he has stated in his .
statement recorded by the Police, there is a contradiction. When a prosecution witness whose statement under Section 161(1) or Section 164 of CrPC has been recorded states factual aspects before the Court which he has not stated in his prior statement recorded under Section 161(1) or Section 164 of CrPC, it is said that there is an omission. There will be an of omission if the witness has omitted to state a fact in his statement recorded by the Police, which he states before the Court in his evidence. The explanation to Section 162CrPC indicates that an omission may rt amount to a contradiction when it is significant and relevant. Thus, every omission is not a contradiction. It becomes a contradiction provided it satisfies the test laid down in the explanation under Section 162. Therefore, when an omission becomes a contradiction, the procedure provided in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 162 must be followed for contradicting witnesses in the cross-examination.
8.As stated in the proviso to sub-Section (1) of section 162, the witness has to be contradicted in the manner provided under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Section 145 reads thus:
"145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.--A witness may be cross- examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him."::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 31
2025:HHC:38824 The Section operates in two parts. The first part provides that a witness can be cross-examined as to his previous statements made in writing without such writing being shown to him. Thus, for example, a .
witness can be cross-examined by asking whether his prior statement exists. The second part is regarding contradicting a witness. While confronting the witness with his prior statement to prove contradictions, the witness must be shown his prior statement. If there is a contradiction between the statement made by the witness before the Court and what is recorded in the of statement recorded by the police, the witness's attention must be drawn to specific parts of his prior statement, which are to be used to contradict him. Section 145 provides that the relevant part can be put rt to the witness without the writing being proved. However, the previous statement used to contradict witnesses must be proved subsequently. Only if the contradictory part of his previous statement is proved can the contradictions be said to be proved. The usual practice is to mark the portion or part shown to the witness of his prior statement produced on record.
Marking is done differently in different States. In some States, practice is to mark the beginning of the portion shown to the witness with an alphabet and the end by marking with the same alphabet. While recording the cross-examination, the Trial Court must record that a particular portion marked, for example, as AA was shown to the witness. Which part of the prior statement is shown to the witness for contradicting him has to be recorded in the cross-examination. If the witness admits to having made such a prior statement, that portion can be treated as proved. If the witness does not admit the portion of his prior statement with which he is confronted, it can be proved through the Investigating Officer by asking whether the witness made a statement that was shown to the witness. Therefore, if the witness is intended to be confronted with his prior statement reduced into writing, that ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 32 2025:HHC:38824 particular part of the statement, even before it is proved, must be specifically shown to the witness. After that, the part of the prior statement used to contradict the witness has to be proved. As indicated .
earlier, it can be treated as proved if the witness admits to having made such a statement, or it can be proved in the cross-examination of the concerned police officer. The object of this requirement in Section 145 of the Evidence Act, in confronting the witness by showing him the relevant part of his prior statement, is to give the witness a chance to explain the contradiction.
of Therefore, this is a rule of fairness.
9.If a former statement of the witness is inconsistent with any part of his evidence given before the Court, it rt can be used to impeach the credit of the witness in accordance with clause (3) of Section 155 of the Evidence Act, which reads thus:
"155. Impeaching the credibility of the witness.
-- The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him--
(1) .............................................. (2) .............................................
(3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted."
It must be noted here that every contradiction or omission is not a ground to discredit the witness or to disbelieve his/her testimony. A minor or trivial omission or contradiction brought to the record is not sufficient to disbelieve the witness's version. Only when there is a material contradiction or omission can the Court disbelieve the witness's version either fully or partially. What is a material contradiction or ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 33 2025:HHC:38824 omission, depending upon the facts of each case? Whether an omission is a contradiction also depends on the facts of each case.
10.We are tempted to quote what is held in a landmark .
decision of this Court in the case ofTahsildar Singh v.State of U.P., 1959 Supp (2) SCR 875.Paragraph 13 of the said decision reads thus:
"13.The learned counsel's first argument is based upon the words "in the manner provided by Section145of theIndian Evidence Act, 1872" found in Section 162of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
of Section 145 of the Evidence Act, it is said, empowers the accused to put all relevant questions to a witness before his attention is called to those parts of the writing with a view to contradicting rthim. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Shyam Singh v.State of Punjab[(1952) 1 SCC 514:1952 SCR 812]. Bose, J. describes the procedure to be followed to contradict a witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, thus at p. 819:
Resort to Section 145 would only be necessary if the witness denies that he made the former statement. In that event, it would be necessary to prove that he did, andif the former statement was reduced to writing, then Section 145 requires that his attention must be drawn to these parts, which are to be used for contradiction. But that position does not arise when the witness admits the former statement. In such a case, all that is necessary is to look to the former statement of which no further proof is necessary because of the admission that it was made."
It is unnecessary to refer to other cases wherein a similar procedure is suggested for putting ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 34 2025:HHC:38824 questions under Section 145of the Indian Evidence Act, for the said decision of this Court and similar decisions were not considered the procedure in a case where the statement in writing was intended .
to be used for contradiction under Section 162of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Section 145 of the Evidence Act is in two parts: the first part enables the accused to cross-examine a witness as to aprevious statement made by him in writing or reduced to writing without such writing being shown to him; the second part deals with a situation where the cross-
of examination assumes the shape of contradiction: in other words, both parts deal with cross-examination; the first part with cross-examination other than by way of contradiction, and the second with cross- rt examination by way of contradiction only. The procedure prescribed is that, if it is intended to contradict a witness by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. The proviso to Section 162of the Code of Criminal Procedureonly enables the accused to make use of such astatement to contradict a witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It would be doing violence to the language of the proviso if the said statement were allowed to be used for the purpose of cross-
examining a witness within the meaning of the first part of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Nor are we impressed by the argument that it would not be possible to invoke the second part of Section 145 of the Evidence Act without putting relevant questions under the first part thereof. The difficulty is more imaginary than real. The second part of Section 145 of the Evidence Act clearly indicates the simple procedure to be followed. To illustrate: A says in the witness box that B stabbed C; before the police, he had stated that D stabbed C. His attention can be drawn to that part of the statement made before the police, ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 35 2025:HHC:38824 which contradicts his statement in the witness box. If he admits his previous statement, no further proof is necessary; if he does not admitit, the practice generally followed is to admit it, subject to proof by .
the police officer.On the other hand, the procedure suggested by the learned counsel may be illustrated thus: If the witness is asked, "Did you say before the police officer that you saw a gas light?" and he answers, "Yes", then the statement which does not contain such recital is put to him as a contradiction. This procedure involves two of fallacies: one is that it enables the accused to elicit by a process of cross-examination what the witness stated before the police officer. If a police officer did not make a record of a witness's rt statement, his entire statement could not be used for any purpose, whereas if a police officer recorded a few sentences, by this process of cross-
examination, the witness's oral statement could be brought on record. This procedure, therefore, contravenes the express provision of Section 162 of the Code. The second fallacy is that by the illustration given by the learned counsel for the appellants, there is no self-contradiction of the primary statement made in the witness box, for the witness has not yet made on the stand any assertion at all which can serve as the basis. The contradiction, under the section, should be between what a witness asserted in the witness box and what he stated before the police officer, and not between what he said he had stated before the police officer and what he actually said before him. In such a case, the question could not be put at all: only questions to contradict can be put, and the question here posed does not contradict; it leads to an answer which is contradicted by the police statement. This argument of the learned counsel based upon Section 145 of the Evidence Act is, therefore, not of any relevance in ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 36 2025:HHC:38824 considering the express provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." (emphasis added) This decision is alocus classicus, which will continue to .
guide our Trial Courts. In the facts of the case, the learned Trial Judge has not marked those parts of the witnesses' prior statements based on which they were sought to be contradicted in the cross-examination."
35. It was held in Anees v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 757 that the Courts cannot suo motu take cognisance of of the contradiction and the same has to be brought on record as per the law. It was observed:
rt "64.The court cannotsuo motumake use of statements to the police that have not been proved and ask questions with reference to them which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the court. The words 'if duly proved' are used in Section162Cr. P.C.clearly show that the record of the statement of witnesses cannot be admitted in evidence straightaway, nor can it be looked into, but they must be duly proved for contradiction by eliciting admission from the witness during cross-examination and also during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. The statement before the Investigating Officer can be used for contradiction, but only after strict compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act, that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction.
65.Section 145 of the Evidence Act reads as follows:
"145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.-- A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 37 2025:HHC:38824 or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting .
him."
66.Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, when it is intended to contradict the witness by his previous statement reduced into writing, the attention of such witness must be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him, before the writing can be used. While recording the deposition of a of witness, it becomes the duty of the trial court to ensure that the part of the police statement with which it is intended to contradict the witness is brought to the notice of the witness in his cross-examination. The attention of the rt witness is drawn to that part, and this must be reflected in his cross-examination by reproducing it. If the witness admits the part intended to contradict him, it stands proved, and there is no need for further proof of contradiction, and it will be read while appreciating the evidence. If he denies having made that part of the statement, his attention must be drawn to that statement, and it must be mentioned in the deposition. By this process, the contradiction is merely brought on record, but it is yet to be proved. Thereafter, when the Investigating Officer is examined in the court, his attention should be drawn to the passage marked for contradiction; it will then be proved in the deposition of the Investigating Officer, who, again, by referring to the police statement, will depose about the witness having made that statement. The process again involves referring to the police statement and culling out the part with which the maker of the statement was intended to be contradicted. If the witness was not confronted with that part of the statement with which the defence wanted to contradict him, then the court cannotsuo motumake use of statements to police not proved in compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act, that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 38 2025:HHC:38824 contradiction." [See:V.K. Mishrav.State of Uttarakhand:
(2015) 9 SCC 588]
36. Therefore, it is impermissible to contradict the .
witness with reference to the previous statement without his attention having been drawn towards the previous inconsistent statement.
37. Maya Devi (PW-3) stated that she was not aware of of who had beaten whom. She was permitted to be cross-
examined. She denied that the Darat and shirt were produced rt in her presence. She admitted her signature on the memos.
She denied the previous statement recorded by the police. She admitted that Sangat Ram (PW-2) had sustained grievous injuries to his arm. She admitted that articles lying inside the shop were thrown, but denied that the articles were thrown by the accused. She was residing separately from her husband, and she had a strained relationship with her husband. Her husband turned her out of her matrimonial home and was not providing any maintenance to her.
38. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that the testimony of this witness cannot be used to discard the prosecution's case. She admitted her enmity with Sangat Ram ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 39 2025:HHC:38824 (PW-2). She was turned out of her matrimonial home, and he was not providing any maintenance to her. Therefore, she had .
a motive not to support her husband.
39. She was contradicted with her previous statement, and she denied it. HC Uttam Chand (PW-8) specifically stated that he had recorded the statement(Ext.PW-8/K) of Maya Devi of (PW-3) as per her version. This was not challenged in her cross-examination and has to be accepted as correct. Thus, rt this witness is shown to have made two inconsistent statements -- one before the Court and another before the police, both of which cannot stand together, and her testimony cannot be relied upon to contradict the prosecution's case.
40. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sat Paul v. Delhi Admn., (1976) 1 SCC 727 that where a witness has been thoroughly discredited by confronting him with the previous statement, his statement cannot be relied upon.
However, when he is confronted with some portions of the previous statement, his credibility is shaken to that extent, and the rest of the statement can be relied upon. It was observed:
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 402025:HHC:38824 "52. From the above conspectus, it emerges clearly that even in a criminal prosecution, when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a .
matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether, as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed regarding a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, of he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be rt creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto."
41. This Court also took a similar view in Ian Stilman versus. State 2002(2) ShimLC 16 wherein it was observed:
"12. It is now well settled that when a witness who has been called by the prosecution is permitted to be cross-
examined on behalf of the prosecution, such a witness loses credibility and cannot be relied upon by the defence. We find support for the view we have taken from the various authorities of the Apex Court. In Jagir Singh v. The State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1400, the Apex Court observed:
"It is now well settled that when a witness, who has been called by the prosecution, is permitted to be cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution, the result of that course being adopted is to discredit this witness altogether and not merely to get rid of a part of his testimony".::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 41
2025:HHC:38824
42. Dhana Devi (PW-7) stated that she heard some noise on 21.05.2007 at about 4:00 p.m. She was sent to the .
house of Maya Devi (PW-3) and took her to the place of the incident. She saw that the accused Raj Kumar was armed with a Darat, and the arm of Jitender Thakur (PW-1) was bleeding.
Clothes and a machine were thrown on the road. The accused of also threatened to kill Jitender Thakur (PW-1) and his wife.
She stated in her cross-examination that she did not rt remember which hand of Jitender was bleeding. She volunteered to say perhaps the left hand was bleeding. Sangat Ram (PW-2) had sustained injuries on the left elbow. She had not witnessed the infliction of injury or the throwing of the articles away from the shop. She denied that she had not witnessed anything, and she was making a false statement.
43. There is nothing in her statement to show that she was making a false statement. She candidly admitted that she was not sure which hand of Jitender Thakur (PW-1) had sustained injury and stated that perhaps the left hand was bleeding. This is in accordance with the medical evidence, wherein the injury was found on the left hand. She stated that Sangat Ram had sustained injury on his left hand; however, ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 42 2025:HHC:38824 the Medical Officer had found injury on the right elbow joint.
She made the statement on 14.06.2012, whereas the incident .
had taken place on 21.05.2007. Thus, she made a statement after five years of the incident, and the minor contradictions were bound to come with the passage of time due to the failure of memory. Hence, the statement of Dhana Devi (PW-
of
7) cannot be discarded.
44. Her testimony corroborated the statements of the rt injured in material particulars. She had seen the accused with Darat and injuries on the persons of Jitender Thakur (PW-1) and Sangat Ram (PW-2). This duly corroborates the prosecution's version.
45. HC Uttam Chand (PW-8) visited the spot and found the articles lying outside the shop. He also found damage caused to the articles inside the shop. He seized them vide memo (Ext.PW7/A). This corroborates the testimonies of victim that the accused had damaged the articles lying inside the shop and thrown them out of the shop. Therefore, learned Courts below had rightly held that the accused was considered a house trespasser by entering into the informant's shop, ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 43 2025:HHC:38824 armed with a Darat and caused grievous injuries to Jitender Thakur (PW-1) with a Darat and caused damage to his .
property.
46. Thus, learned Courts below had rightly convicted the accused of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 326 and 427 of the IPC.
of
47. Learned Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the rt commission of offences punishable under Sections 452, 326 of IPC each and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC with fine and default sentence. These sentences cannot be said to be excessive, considering the manner in which the offence was committed. The accused entered the shop of the informant armed with Darat and caused hurt to two persons in broad daylight. Therefore, a deterrent sentence was required to be awarded, and the sentence of two years cannot be said to be excessive.
48. No other point was urged.
::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS 442025:HHC:38824
49. In view of the above, the present revision fails, and it is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.
.
50. The records of the learned Courts below be returned with a copy of this judgment for the information.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge of 18th November, 2025 (ravinder) rt ::: Downloaded on - 05/12/2025 22:17:49 :::CIS