INDIRA DEVI AND ORS. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 568, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 568 
INDIRA DEVI AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 524 of2016) 
JUNE 03, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3071149 a11d s. 148 - Conviction under 
- Prosecution case that land dispute befl1'een the victim a11d the 
husband of appellant no. 1 - On the fatefit! day, victim beaten by 
appellants and two others - Gun shot injuries inflicted by husband 
of appellant no. 1 and axe injuries inflicted by husband of appellant 
no. 3 _:_FIR lodged by victim for offences uls. 14711481307 rlw s. 
149 ands. 25 of Arms Act against three appellants-ladies alongwith 
husband of appellant no. 1 and 3 - Conviction of five charge sheeted 
accused uls. 3071149 ands, 148 by the courts below - On appeal, 
held: Courts below should not have believed the exaggerated and 
contradictory deposition of the victim qua appellants - Medical 
evidence did not corroborate the subsequent allegations made by 
the victim against appellants - Trial court ignored the contradiction 
and subsequent development qua the three appellants as also erred 
in not keeping in mind that injured witness when interested must be 
subjected to carefitl scrutiny - High Court erred in not analyzing 
the evidence of the victim as well as the medical evidence with care 
and caution -Thus, appellants acquitted of all the charges by 
extending them benefit of doubt. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 An injured witness is
generally reliable is no 
doubt correct but even an injured witness must be subjected to 
careful scrutiny if circumstances and materials available on record 
suggest that he may have falsely implicated some innocent 
persons also as an after thought on account of enmity and 
vendetta. The trial court ignored the contradiction and subsequent 
development qua the three appellants and its failure to consider 
whether the complainant should be believed only in part qua the 
male accused persons and not in respect of the appellants. This 
approach of the trial court is clearly erroneous in law. [Paras 6, 7) 
(572-D-F] 
568
INDIRA DEVI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
1.2 As per prosecution case there is no corresponding injury 
on the person of victim to support the allegation of assault against' · 
the appellants. Coupled with this fact the initial version also creates 
a serious doubt that the specific allegations against the appellants 
have been developed later in the course of deposition in Court. 
Such allegation came only from PW-1 without support from any 
independent witness. In such circumstances and due to lack of 
convincing medical evidence, the credibility of specific allegations 
against the appellants required serious consideration by the trial 
court and also by the High Court while bearing the appeal. 
Unfortunately for the appellants, such consideration did not take 
place. [Para 8] [573-B-D] 
1.3 A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the 
High Court did not consider the specific case of the appellants 
that they were merely by-standers and specific allegations against 
them have been added subsequently, contrary to the statement 
before the police. The High Court erred in not analyzing the 
evidence of the victim as well as the medical evidence with care 
and caution in the light of specific defence of the appellants that 
there was no reliable material and circumstances to rope them 
with the assault upon the victim made by the other accused 
persons, with the aid of Section 149 IPC. [Para 9] [573-D-l<'] 
1.4 The courts below should not have believed the
exaggerated and contradictory deposition of the victim qua the 
appellants in view of the fact that the parties were having land 
dispute from before and even then in the FIR no specific role 
was assigned to the appellants while specific role was assigned 
to two co-accused. The medical evidence also does not 
corroborate the subsequent allegations made by the victim against 
the appellants. The broad features of the case also reveal that 
the two male accused were allegedly having a gun and an axe in 
their hand and they used these weapons only to cause injuries 
which did not pose any danger to the life of the victim. In such 
circumstances the women accused could have hardly any reason 
to unnecessarily get involved into assault so as to cause simple 
injuries by fists and kicks. The conviction and sentence imposed 
against the appellants are set aside and are acquitted of all the 
charges by extending them the benefit of doubt. [Para 10] [573-
G-H; 574-A-B] 
569 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
570 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C .R. 
A 
CRlMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1-1 
No. 524 of 2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2016 of the High Cou11 
of 1-Iimachal Pradesh at Shim la in CRA No. 4015 of 2013. 
Naresh Kumar Tomar, Bal raj Dewan, Ad vs. for the Appellant. 
Suryanarayana Singh, Sr. Addi. AG Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv. 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Cow1 was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. I. All the three appellants who are 
ladies were arrayed as accused alongwith Brij Lal, husband of appellant 
no. I and Dev Raj, husband of appellant no. 3, in FIR no. 198 of2011 
lodged by victim Shriram with Police Station Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur 
(Himachal Pradesh) for offences under Section 147/148/307 read with 
Section 149 of the !PC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The learned 
Additional Sessions Judge Ghumarwin, Bilaspur accepted the prosecution 
case against all the five chargesheeted accused in Sessions Trial No. 
1017 of 2012 and imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment (RI) 
for five years and a fine ofRs.5,000/-each forthe offence under Section 
307 read with Section l 49 of the !PC. RI for six months and a fine of 
Rs.1,000/- each was also imposed on all the convicts for offence under 
Section 148 of the !PC. Accused Brij Lal was further sentenced to 
undergo simple imprisonment for two years along with a fine ofRs.3,000/ 
- for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. In default of
payment of 
fines, fu1iher substantive sentences of varying periods were a !so ordered 
by the trial cou11. In appeal the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at 
Shim la by the impugned judgment and order dated 2.1.2016 passed in 
Criminal Appeal No. 4015of2013. affirmed the conviction and sentences 
as noted above and dismissed the appeal as one without any merit. 
2. On behalf of the three appellants a common argument has 
been advanced that both the Courts below failed to notice and appreciate 
vital contradictions in respect of overt act alleged against the lady accused 
persons, the appellants, as mentioned in the initial version of the 
occurrence contained in the first information report and in the subsequent 
deposition of the informant Shriram rendered during the trial. The 
argument has been further elaborated by urging that had the Courts 
below noticed the vital contradictions, they would have treated the 
subsequent specific allegations against the appellants as mere
INDIRA DEVI AND ORS. v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.] 
exaggerations and improvements fit to be discarded in view of specific 
role assigned in the FIR only against the two male appellants Brij Lal 
and Dev Raj, own brothers of the informant. As a further corollary it has 
been urged that the appellants were, in all probability present merely as 
on-lookers and hence they did not merit conviction by holding them guilty 
of sharing a common object with the assailants of the victim. In other 
words, as per learned counsel for the appellants the Courts below have 
erred in fact and in law in applying Section 149 of the !PC against the 
appellants for convicting them for the offences allegedly committed by 
the two male accused persons. 
3. In order to appreciate the aforesaid submissions and arguments 
advanced on behalf of the appellants it is not necessary to go into details 
of all the materials and evidence available ·on record. It is sufficient to 
notice the allegations made by the victim informant in the FIR and in his 
evidence recorded in the course of trial along with the injuries as proved 
by the medical evidence adduced by the Doctor, PW-17. 
4. In the FIR recorded on the date of occurrence itself i.e. 
26.12.2011 but after receiving medical treatment the informant victim 
disclosed that there was land dispute between him and his brother Brij 
Lal. It is alleged in the FIR that on the previous day two trees of Khair 
had fallen down and on the
date of occurrence at about 8 o'clock in the 
morning when the informant wanted the trees to be cut into pieces, 
allegedly the five accused persons, Brij Lal, Dev Raj and the three 
appellants came at the spot and started beating him. Brij Lal was having 
gun which he fired at his left jaw. Dev Raj assaulted with axe at the right 
arm. The victim came back to home and was taken to hospital where he 
gave the statement to police which is contained in the FIR. 
5. As PW-1, the victim Shriram deposed on 16.8.2012 in Com1 
giving details of civil dispute/land dispute between him and his brothers. 
He claimed to have forbidden the accused persons from 1 ifting the pieces 
of fallen trees and when his orders were ignored, he protested and 
resultantly suffered a gun shot injury on the left side of his face at the 
hands of accused Brij Lal. He was then caught by Dev Raj who gave 
him a kick with his right knee and as a result he fell down. Thereafter 
Dev Raj caused an injury on his right hand with an axe. Thereafter an 
obvious improvement has appeared in the deposition of the victim that 
appellant no. 2 Fullan Devi attacked him with a 'darat' (sharp cutting 
weapon) which hit on his left hand, the other two appellants also gave 
571 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
572 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.CR. 
him beatings with kicks and fist blows. He has specified that blood 
oozed out only from left jaw and right hand. Dev Raj allegedly run away 
with the gun. In the next breath he added that Dev Raj ran away from 
the spot along with the appellants. Only Brij Lal remained at the spot 
and he further assaulted the victim as a result whereof he fell down. 
Since son of the victim was away from the village, his two daughters-in-
law came to the spot and took him to his house. His son came later and 
took him on a vehicle to Bilaspur where he was subjected to x-ray and 
some treatment and then referred to a hospital at Shimla. But before 
that his statement was recorded by the police at Bilaspur. 
6. The trial comtjudgment discloses that the defence confronted 
the victim PW-1 with his earlier statement wherein he had not alleged 
that Fullan Devi assaulted him with a 'darat'. But the trial court in para 
24 of the judgment misdirected itself by confining the consideration only 
to the issue as to whether the complainant who was an injured should be 
relied upon or not. In view of his being an injured witness as proved by 
the Doctor, the trial comt chose to place full reliance on his deposition. 
The error committed by the trial court was in ignoring the contradiction 
and subsequent development quo the three appellants herein and its failure 
to consider whether the complainant should be believed only in part
qua 
the male accused persons and not in respect of the appellants. This 
approach of the trial court is clearly erroneous in law. 
7. The proposition of law that an injured witness is generally 
reliable is no doubt co1Tect but even an injured witness must be subjected 
to careful scrutiny if circumstances and materials available on record 
suggest that he may have falsely imp I icated some innocent persons also 
as an after thought on account of enmity and vendetta. The trial comt 
erred in not keeping this in mind. 
8. The medical evidence of PW-17, Dr. Superiya Atwal proves 
the injury on left side of the face of PW-I to be a gun shot injury. The 
second injury was an abrasion on the medial aspect of left hand, Sx I cm 
in size. The third injury was a bleeding one on the back of right hand 
5x5xl/4 cm in size extending from thumb region to middle finger. The 
fourth injury was again an abrasion on front of right thigh of2xl cm in 
size. According to Doctor, the injury no. 2 could have been caused with 
blunt side of'darat', whereas injury no.3 could have been caused by an 
axe. Injuries no. 2 and 4 were opined as simple in nature. In cross-
mm;n•Hoo tho Doctw •dm;ttoo thot ;njory no. 2 wru> po";bJe even by ~
INDIRA DEVI AND. ORS. v. STATE OF HIMACHAt PRADESH 
[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.] 
a fall on hard surface. A careful analysis of the injuries as proved by the 
medical evidence creates a distinct impression that injury no. 2 is not by 
a sharp cutting weapon like 'darat' and besides being· simple it may have 
been on account of fall. The victim, PW I has admitted that after receiving 
gun shot injury he was assaulted by Dev Raj and made to fall. He has 
also alleged further assault by Brij Lal after the other accused had gone 
away. Thus as per prosecution case there is no corresponding injury on 
the person of victim to support the allegation of assault against the lady 
accused persons, the appellants. Coupled with this fact the initial version 
also creates a serious doubtthat specific allegations against the appellants 
have been developed later in the course of deposition in Court. Such 
allegation has come only from PW-I without support from any 
independent witness. In such circumstances and due to lack of convincing 
medical evidence, the credibility of specific allegations against the 
appellants required serious consideration by the trial court and also by 
the High Court while hearing the appeal. Unfo1tunately for the appellants, 
such consideration did not take place. 
9. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the High Court 
did not consider the specific case of the appellants as noted above that 
they were merely by-standers and specific allegations against
them have 
been added subsequently, contrary to the statement before the police. 
We find that the High Court erred in not analyzing the evidence of the 
victim PW- I as well as the medical evidence with care and caution in 
the light of specific defence of the appellants that there was no reliable 
material and circumstances to rope them with the assault upon the victim 
made by the other accused persons, with the aid of Section 149 of the 
IPC. On this account the impugned judgment and order therefore stands 
vitiated not only on facts but also in law. 
I 0. We have given anxious consideration to the allegations against 
the appellants in the FIR as well as in the evidence that has come during 
trial. In view of discussions made earlier, we are of the view that the 
Courts below should not have believed the exaggerated and contradictory 
deposition of the victim qua the appellants in view of the fact that the 
parties were having land dispute from before and even then in the FIR 
no specific role was assigned to the appellants while specific role was 
assigned to two co-accused. The medical evidence also does not 
corroborate the subsequent allegations made by the victim against the 
appellants. The broad features of the case also reveal that the two male 
accused were allegedly having a gun and an axe in their hand and they 
573 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
574 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
used these weapons only to cause injuries which did not pose any danger 
to the life of the victim. In such circumstances the women accused 
could have hardly any re&son to unnecessarily get involved into assault 
so as to cause simple injuries by fists and kicks. For all the aforesaid 
reasons we find merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the 
appellants ?,;-1d do not agree with the learned counsel for the State who 
has soug:n to support the impugned judgment and order. The conviction 
and sentence imposed against the appellants are set aside and they are 
acquitted of all the charges by extending them the benefit of doubt. The 
appellant no. I has been exempted from surrendering in this case. She 
now need not surrender. The other appellants shall be released from 
custody forthwith if not required in any other case. The appeal stands 
allowed. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal allowed.