Important Laws covered in the case are,
● Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code act
● Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act
Background of case
The Trial Court held the appellant liable. In appeal, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court and thus, the appellant had been convicted of offences u/s 302 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
Facts of the case
The appellant was having a love affair with the deceased but, got enraged when he saw the deceased talking to another boy; and caused multiple injuries to the deceased by a pointed knife, leading to her death
As per the post-mortem report as many as 12 injuries were found over the body of the deceased, including penetrating wounds on lungs and liver. The prosecution also examined PW-1 as an eyewitness, who asserted having seen the appellant repeatedly causing injuries on the person of the deceased
Issue
● Whether the original writ petition would stand dismissed?
● Whether the Evidence of eye-witness cannot be discarded only on ground that he allegedly did not raise alarm or failed to intervene when deceased was being assaulted & stabbed?
judgment
The impugned judgment was set aside. The original writ petition stood dismissed. But this won’t prevent the original writ petitioners from initiating appropriate proceedings before the civil court for the damages/losses, if any suffered by them.
The evidence of PW-1, being the eyewitness to the incident, remains unimpeachable and has been believed by the two Courts. His evidence cannot be discarded only because he allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being ferociously assaulted and stabbed. Excessive number of injuries do not ipso facto lead to an inference about involvement of more than one person; rather the nature of injuries and similarity of their size/dimension would only lead to the inference that she was mercilessly and repeatedly stabbed by the same weapon and by the same person.
-Shivanii Singh
Comments