'Evidence Of Injured Witness Not At Higher Pedestal If Accused Is Also Injured': Allahabad High Court, Says Injury Guarantees Presence, Not Truth

A bench of Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II added that injury on a witness may be a guarantee of his presence on the spot, but it is no guarantee of the truth of his deposition.

The bench was also of the view that in a case of sole eye witness, the witness has to be reliable and trustworthy and the case must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. His unnatural conduct and unexplained circumstances can be a ground for disbelieving the witness, the Court noted.

The bench was dealing with the complainant's appeal against a Sessions Court's September 2025 judgment acquitting the accused of attempt to murder charges.

It was the complainant's case that in May 2018 he was surrounded and assaulted by the accused, one of whom allegedly attempted to stab him with a knife which resulted in injuries to his left hand.

It was his argument that prosecution version was corroborated by the medical evidence but the Court ignored the same and acquitted the accused.

Hearing the appeal, the High Court noted that although the complainant had named multiple witnesses who allegedly saw the incident, none of them were produced during the trial. This was despite the fact that two of them were earlier examined at the pre-summoning stage.

The prosecution ultimately relied solely on the complainant's testimony and the doctor who conducted the medico-legal examination.

Taking into account the facts of the case as alleged and the trial court's order, the HC noted that it can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it can come to a finding that the only conclusion is he guilt of the accused as the case was proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

The Court also stressed the well-settled principle that the testimony of a single injured witness can be sufficient for conviction if it is credible, trustworthy and corroborated by medical or other evidence.

The Court added that an injured witness commands special weight because he is unlikely to spare the actual assailant, however, his testimony has to be reliable, consistent and supported by circumstances.

In the present case, however, the Court found substantial contradictions between the complainant's oral testimony and the injury report.

The division noted that complainant stated that three fingers were cut by a knife blow, but medical evidence revealed only one incised wound and two lacerated wounds which indicated injury with blunt force trauma rather than a sharp-edged weapon.

"…the version of manner of incident as narrated by the complainant does not find support from medical evidence", the Court remarked.

The court further noted that though the complainant admitted in cross-examination that one of the accused, was also medically examined and had sustained injuries in the same incident, but this fact was concealed in both the complaint and his examination-in-chief.

In fact, it also emerged that the accused, not the complainant, had called the police on the day of the incident and proceedings under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. were initiated against both sides. This fact was also concealed by the complainant.

The Court further highlighted that there was an unexplained delay of 16 days in initiating the criminal proceedings.

Regarding the testimony of a sole injured witness (complainant), the bench noted that while the same is given significant weight, but it is not automatically accepted, as his presence at the scene alone is established by his injuries.

"…conviction can be sustained if the injured witness's evidence is cogent, reliable, and consistent, inspiring confidence and free from major contradictions. In the case of a sole eye witness, the witness has to be reliable, trustworthy, his testimony worthy of credence and the case proven beyond reasonable doubt. Unnatural conduct and unexplained circumstances can be a ground for disbelieving the witness", the Bench remarked.

Against this backdrop, finding his testimony to be note reliable, the Court dismissed the appeal as it found the trial court's order of the acquittal to be valid.