A Reliable Testimony Of An Injured Witness Holds Weight Even In The Face Of Procedural Irregularities For Conviction Under S. 307 IPC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court vindicated the case of the State upholding S. 307/324 IPC (attempt to murder/voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapons) Conviction after confirming the reliability of the testimony of the injured witness. Appellant's objections to procedural irregularities such as non-examination of public witness and non-recovery of the weapon of offense by the prosecution were brushed aside in light of the reliable testimony of the injured witness. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri highlighted the law on appreciation of injured witness according to a very high degree of reliability. Citing the Supreme Court decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and Others (2011), he quoted: "The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable, and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein." Thus, the testimony of an injured witness, unless countered by significant discrepancies, is highly reliable, removing all doubts as to the likelihood of the witness falsely implicating the attacker. Background The convict assaulted the injured witness on multiple occasions, leading to an FIR under Sections 308/34 of the IPC. On the day of the Complaint, the injured was accosted by the assailant. He threatened him with assault citing the proceedings initiated by the injured. At night, the assailant accosted him and his friend on their way to a medical store. As per the Police Complaint, he assaulted him at vital body parts viz. neck and right shoulder with a knife. Further, upon the friend's intervention, the assailant inflicted injuries upon him as well. The injured were taken to the hospital. An FIR was lodged the next day at around 3:30 AM. The concerned doctors' MLCs were brought on record, confirming that the injuries being sharp and incisive could have been inflicted by a knife. During the examination of witnesses, the Investigating Officers deposed that the weapon of offense could not be retrieved. The Appellant raised this as a contention before the Court proceedings. Further, the Appellant suggested that the injuries could have been due to a fall. However, this was denied by the injured witness. The Appellant also highlighted other discrepancies such as non-recovery of blood-stained clothes and contradictions between the testimonies of the injured witnesses specifying different times of the incident. Brushing aside all such contentions, the Court ruled that the testimony of the injured witness was found to be highly reliable. This was because the testimony was consistent on all other aspects with the testimony of the friend, medical examinations on the injured, and the MLC details. Two significant points of law were clarified by the Court here: Recovery of the weapon of offense is not a sine qua non for convicting an accused. Countering the Appellant's objection to the non-recovery of weapon, the Court citing Rakesh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supreme Court, 2021), held that the same is not absolutely necessary for determining Conviction. Non-examination of a public witness becomes insignificant in light of corroboration of testimony of the injured witness with another injured and the MLC record. Further, the injuries were found to be of grievous nature. Citing Sadakat Kotwal and Another v. State of Jharkhand (Supreme Court, 2021), the Court quoted: "As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions nobody can enter into the mind of the accused and his intention has to be ascertained from the weapon used, part of the body chosen for assault and the nature of the injury caused. Considering the case on hand on the aforesaid principles, when the deadly weapon - dagger has been used, there was a stab injury on the stomach and near the chest which can be said to be on the vital part of the body and the nature of injuries caused, it is rightly held that the appellants have committed the offence under Section 307 IPC." Holding The Court upheld the conviction that the above factors, coupled with the enmity between the parties, were reflected by...

A Reliable Testimony Of An Injured Witness Holds Weight Even In The Face Of Procedural Irregularities For Conviction Under S. 307 IPC: Delhi High Court

Prateek Chakraverty

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

A Reliable Testimony Of An Injured Witness Holds Weight Even In The Face Of Procedural Irregularities For Conviction Under S. 307 IPC: Delhi High Court

Prateek Chakraverty

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers