Delhi High Court Dismisses Allegations Of False Implication Against Complainant, Cites Law On Appreciation Of Injured Witness' Testimony

The Delhi High Court recently referred to the law on appreciation of testimony of an injured witness, while upholding the judgment and conviction for attempted Murder punishable under Section 307 of IPC.Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri noted that the complainant/ witness had identified the appellant (convict) in Court and in cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the appellant was falsely implicated by him as he had taken loan from the appellant.In this regard, the Judge referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and Others (2011), to hold that the testimony of the complainant can be relevant and reliable, depending on the facts and circumstances of every case."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 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," the Top Court had said.In the instant case, the corroboration of the injuries inflicted upon the Complainant was established through MLC and expert witnesses, beyond reasonable doubt. The Complainant had deposed that he had received knife blows from the Assailant on his abdomen, ear and back. The Assailant defended his case by alleging false implication because the Complainant owed him Rs. 100/-. The Complainant denied the allegation of false implication. Finding the case against the Assailant to be beyond a reasonable doubt due to corroboration by observations in the MLC and witness examinations by the prosecution, the Court concurred with the ASJ's Conviction. In the final holding, the Court reduced the sentence imposed on the Appellant, keeping in view his age, the period already undergone by him and the fact that he is not involved in any other case.The Court held thus: "It is directed that the appellant's sentence be modified to the period already undergone and he be set free unless required in any other case, subject to deposit of enhanced fine of Rs.14,000/- by him, out of which Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the Complainant. In default of payment by the appellant of the fine imposed vide the impugned order and/or the enhanced fine imposed by this Court, the appellant shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month". Case Title: Ankit v. State (NCT of Delhi) CRL.A. 170/2020Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 70 Coram: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri Date of Judgment: 4.1.2022Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Delhi High Court Dismisses Allegations Of False Implication Against Complainant, Cites Law On Appreciation Of Injured Witness' Testimony

Prateek Chakraverty

Tags