17 June 2024


High Court of Delhi

Roop Kishore Vs. State




Testimony of an injured accused and his deposition has to be relied upon

In the facts of present case, Appellant has been charged under Section 307/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for causing gunshot injury to PW-2 by a country made pistol, which hit him in his stomach and for assaulting PW-3 who had come to the rescue of (PW-2), for the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC. For criminally intimidating PW-2, Appellant was also charged under Section 506 of IPC. His statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Appellant has denied his participation in occurrence. Trial Court convicted Appellant for offences

Where a witness to the occurrence is himself an injured, testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable. There is an in-built guarantee of his presence at scene of crime and it is highly unlikely for him to spare his assailants in order to falsely implicate someone else. Very convincing evidence is required to discredit such injured witnesses. It is well settled that, a special evidentiary status is accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and his deposition has to be relied upon in the absence of any special ground for rejecting the same. His testimony would lend finality to supposition that he was present at the time of the occurrence.

The MLC of PW-2 which was prepared at hospital reveals that, condition of PW-2 was not good and he was semi conscious. Apart from the gun shot injury in his stomach, there were lacerated wounds on his scalp and near the ears. In that view of the matter, it cannot be expected that PW-2 was fit for making statement. The statement regarding the manner, time and nature of assault is consistent so far as the deposition of P.Ws. 2 & 3 are concerned.

There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW-3 or of PW-2 during the trial. The inconsistencies which have crept in the statements of some of the witnesses are too insignificant to take notice of. Merely because blood stained earth was not taken from the spot would not render the other clinching evidence nugatory.

There is no necessity of examination of any other independent witness, when two witnesses to the occurrence have clearly deposed against Appellant. Thus, conviction of Appellant under Section 307/34 and 506 of IPC is justified. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Sentence imposed upon Appellant also appears to be reasonable and does not call for any interference.

Tags : Conviction Legality Evidence Credibility

Share :