Summary
Two appellants challenged their convictions for causing hurt with firearms under Section 324 IPC and using arms under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Court accepted the core eyewitness account, supported by medical evidence of firearm injuries, and rejected the alibi and reliance on minor discrepancies. It affirmed the High Court’s convictions and sentences and dismissed both appeals.
Issues
- Whether the eyewitness and medical evidence sustained the convictions despite the alleged inconsistencies and alibi.
Provisions considered
- Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860Voluntary hurt caused by firing at the injured informant established hurt by a dangerous weapon. (¶ 20-22)
- Section 27, Arms Act, 1959On the findings of firearm use causing the established injuries, the Court also sustained the convictions for using arms. (¶ 22-23)
Held
- The accepted testimony established that the appellants were present with firearms and caused the informant’s injuries. Manoj Singh’s alibi did not inspire confidence against the evidence accepted by the Court. (¶ 14-16)
- Minor differences concerning the time or attribution of injuries did not undermine the consistent core account accepted here. Contradictions must be assessed for materiality; trivial omissions do not automatically discredit testimony. (¶ 17)
- Medical evidence has corroborative value and may independently establish facts. The doctor’s evidence that the injuries were caused by firearms supported the prosecution account in this case. (¶ 18-19)
- The proved voluntary infliction of firearm injuries satisfied Section 324 IPC. On the evidence and findings in these appeals, the accompanying Section 27 Arms Act convictions also warranted no interference. (¶ 20-23)
Result
Both appeals dismissed. The High Court’s convictions under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and the sentences it imposed or affirmed, were left undisturbed.