Supreme Court Acquits Women Accused in Himachal Pradesh Assault Case

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Indira Devi & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, ruled on an appeal challenging the conviction of three women accused in an assault case. The Court found inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of doubt.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an incident on December 26, 2011, in Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. The victim, Shriram, alleged that he was assaulted by five individuals, including three women (Indira Devi and two others) and two male relatives (Brij Lal and Dev Raj). The prosecution charged them under Sections 147, 148, 307 read with 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The trial court convicted all five accused and sentenced them as follows:

• Five years rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each under Section 307/149 IPC.
• Six months RI and a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 148 IPC.
• Brij Lal received an additional two years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000 under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the convictions. The three female accused (Indira Devi and two others) then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Appellants

• The appellants contended that the courts failed to consider contradictions in the prosecution’s version regarding their alleged involvement.
• The initial FIR only attributed specific roles to Brij Lal and Dev Raj, not the female accused.
• The prosecution exaggerated and added new allegations in later testimonies.
• The female accused were mere onlookers and had no common intention to commit an offense.
• There was no medical evidence supporting the claim that the female accused inflicted injuries.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Himachal Pradesh)

• The prosecution maintained that the three women actively participated in the assault.
• They assisted Brij Lal and Dev Raj in restraining the victim while the assault took place.
• The trial court correctly relied on the victim’s testimony, which was corroborated by medical evidence.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Contradictions in Witness Statements

The Court found significant inconsistencies in the victim’s statements:

“The trial court misdirected itself by ignoring contradictions between the FIR and subsequent depositions. The initial FIR only named two male accused as assailants, yet later depositions introduced new allegations against the female appellants.”

2. Lack of Medical Evidence Against the Women Accused

The medical report, presented by Dr. Superiya Atwal (PW-17), documented injuries but did not establish that the women accused inflicted any wounds.

The Court ruled:

“The medical evidence does not corroborate the specific allegations against the female accused. The possibility of false implication due to a prior land dispute cannot be ruled out.”

3. No Common Object Under Section 149 IPC

The Court observed that the accused were convicted under Section 149 IPC, which holds members of an unlawful assembly liable for acts committed by any member. However, in this case, the prosecution failed to prove a common intention:

“The appellants cannot be convicted merely for being present at the scene. There is no independent witness testimony confirming their active participation.”

4. Failure to Apply Scrutiny to an Injured Witness

While an injured witness is generally considered reliable, the Court emphasized that their testimony must still withstand scrutiny:

“The trial court erred in relying entirely on the complainant’s version without considering possible exaggeration. Even an injured witness can falsely implicate others due to personal enmity.”

Supreme Court’s Final Decision

• The appeal was allowed, and the three female appellants were acquitted.
• Their conviction under Sections 307/149, 148 IPC was set aside.
• The Court directed their immediate release if not required in any other case.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Protection Against False Implication

The judgment reinforces that courts must carefully scrutinize allegations, particularly when there is a history of prior disputes.

2. Establishing Common Object Under Section 149 IPC

The ruling clarifies that mere presence at a crime scene is insufficient to invoke Section 149 IPC.

3. Independent Corroboration of Witness Testimony

The decision highlights the necessity of corroborating victim testimonies with medical and independent witness evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Indira Devi & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh sets an important precedent for criminal cases involving multiple accused. By emphasizing the need for independent corroboration and scrutiny of injured witnesses, the Court reaffirmed the principles of fair trial and justice.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Indira Devi & Ors. vs State of Himachal Pr Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 03-06-2016-1741872330836.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by Shiva Kirti Singh
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments June 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category