Nishka Srinivas Veluvali
Published On: February 06, 2022 at 15:25 IST
The Delhi High Court Acquitted the Case of the State while upholding the Section 307 and Section 324 of Indian Penal Code (attempt to Murder or voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapons) upon verifying the authenticity of the Testimony stated by the injured witness.
The Court had stroked off the objections put forth by the Appellant with regard to irregularities in the procedure of investigation such as “non – examination of the public witness as well as non – recovery of the weapon of Offense by the prosecution”.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri while stressing on the Law of the injured witness and stated that, “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”.
The Court shed off all the doubts on the likelihood of the false statements from the Witness and stated that the testimony of the injured witness is reliable and authentic until and unless it contradicted by a significant and legal disparities.
The Accused had Assaulted the injured witness in multiple occasions resulting to a First Information Report (FIR) as per the Section of 308/34 of the IPC. The injured witness was aggressively approached by the Assailant on the day of the complaint and threatened him with Assault and cited proceedings against the Injured. The injured in his complaint also stated that he was also Assaulted on his way to the medical store with a knife.
The Assailant in the Court had opposed the allegations by stating that the weapon of the Offense was not retrieved and raised the doubts on the reliability of the testimony recorded by the injured witness.
The Delhi High Court thus brushing off all the Allegations and questions raised on by the Appellant upheld that the FIR filed is evident enough to prove the enmity persistent between two parties and considered the testimony recoded by the Injured Witness.
