Testimony Of An Injured Witness Not Automatically Conclusive When Accused Also Injured: Allahabad High Court
The High Court upheld the acquittal of three accused persons after concluding that the testimony of the sole injured complainant could not be relied upon in light of contradictions and the fact that one of the accused was also injured.
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the acquittal of three accused persons by the Sessions Court, observing that the testimony of a sole injured witness cannot be placed on a higher pedestal when the accused has also sustained injuries in the same incident.
The Bench held that the complainant’s version was contradicted by medical evidence and suffered from material inconsistencies which rendered the conviction unsafe.
The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the Additional District and Sessions Judge in a case under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Ajay Kumar-II examined the testimony of the sole injured witness and observed that while “it is true that evidence of injured witness has to be placed at higher pedestal, however, this principle may not apply to a case when the accused is also injured”.
The Bench clarified that “injury on the person of a witness may be a guarantee of his presence on the spot, but it is no guarantee of the truth of his deposition”.
The appellant was represented by Advocate Jata Shankar Pandey.
Background
According to the complaint, the appellant alleged that while passing by the house of the accused, he was surrounded and assaulted, including an attempted knife blow allegedly aimed at his chest. He claimed to have sustained multiple injuries, including “three cut fingers”. The FIR was not registered at the police station, following which he initiated complaint proceedings.
After trial, the Sessions Court acquitted the accused, citing contradictions between the complainant’s oral testimony and the medical evidence, an unexplained delay in filing the complaint, and concealment of material facts, including cross-cases and injuries to the accused.
The present appeal was filed against this acquittal.
Court’s Observation
The Allahabad High Court, while adjudicating the matter, reiterated the limited scope of interference with acquittal under appellate jurisdiction, noting that the trial court’s assessment of facts is entitled to due deference unless the conclusions are perverse or wholly unsupported by the record.
The Court noted that one of the accused had also sustained injuries in the same incident, and that proceedings under preventive provisions were initiated against both sides, indicating cross-versions, and the complainant’s failure to disclose this fact cast doubt on the correctness of his narration.
The Court, while taking note that the prosecution’s case rested on the sole testimony of the appellant, observed that an injured witness’s testimony is generally given greater weight because the injury supports their presence at the scene, but this principle does not automatically apply when the accused is also shown to be injured.
The Bench held that in such situations, the injury alone cannot be treated as a guarantee of the truthfulness of the witness’s version, and the evidence must still be assessed on its merits
The Court further examined the medical evidence and found that it did not match the version narrated in the complaint. While the complainant alleged multiple sharp-edged injuries to his fingers, the medical report recorded only one incised wound and two lacerated wounds. The Court noted that these inconsistencies weakened the reliability of the prosecution's case.
The Bench also found that there was an unexplained delay in initiating complaint proceedings. The incident was stated to have occurred several days before the filing of the complaint, and no satisfactory explanation was furnished for the delay. The Court held that such an unexplained delay affects the credibility of the allegation.
Having considered the totality of evidence, the Bench held that the testimony of the injured complainant could not be categorised as wholly reliable and that conviction could not be sustained on such testimony without corroboration.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal, holding that the trial court’s findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference. All pending applications were disposed of.
Cause Title: Sanjay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:204014-DB)
Appearances
Appellant: Advocate Jata Shankar Pandey
Respondent: A.G.A.