Injured witness

Injured witness is not necessarily a truthful witness and he can not be believed merely he was having stamp of injuries on his body.

Mere injury on the body of a person would not stamp him/her as a truthful witness.

Injured witness will not be relied upon ipso facto because of injuries, but it is to be examined whether his evidence is trustworthy and confidence inspiring.

Stamps of injuries on the person of a witness may establish his presence at the relevant time at a particular place of occurrence, but the injuries itself are not proof that whatever the witness is telling is the truth.

No doubt, stamp of injuries shows the presence of injured at the spot, but it is not a guarantee that he/she is a truthful witness

Court has to evaluate the intrinsic worth of statement of the injured witness by considering the circumstances of each and every case.

Injury on a witness is only indication of his presence at the spot but is not affirmative proof of his credibility and truthfulness

Each and every word coming from the mouth of injured person is not truth

Mere presence of injuries would not stamp that he is a truthful witness

Testimony of injured witness is to be tested and appraised on the principles applied for appreciation of any other prosecution witness.

Merely the injuries on the body of a person would not stamp him/her a truthful witness.

Mere presence of injury on the person of prosecution witness does not stamp him to be a truthful witness.

Mere injuries on the bodies of the prosecution witnesses do not mean that they are stating the whole truth and their evidence is to be relied upon or discarded while keeping in view the other facts and circumstances of a particular case.

Not necessary that the injured witness had spoken the whole truth and he could not be relied upon unless corroborated.

Injury mean that the witness was present at the place of occurrence but merely the injury on the person does not stamp him a truthful witness.

Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant by stabbing and also attempted at the life of witness

Statement recorded by the injured witness as well as the stamp of injury on his person clearly proved his presence on the spot

Defence had objected the testimony of said injured witness mainly on the ground that he had not lodged the report himself in the hospital

However, said injured witness had no relationship with the deceased nor having any venom against the accused, therefore, he could be regarded as the most reliable and credible witness

Being injured, the witness had gone to Civil Hospital where the Investigating Officer recorded his cursory statement after preparing his injury sheet

Station House Officer of Police had already left for the place of occurrence at the time of recording the statement of the injured witness in hospital, therefore, in such like circumstances to discredit the testimony of the injured witness only on the ground that he did not lodge the report, would not be in consonance with principles for appraisal of evidence

Record showed that it was a case of single accused and the injured eye-witness had sustained stab injury at his hand , therefore, substitution of the accused in the case of stabbing from a short distance was not possible and could be possible only in cases of firearm injuries

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused through trustworthy and reliable evidence, therefore, his conviction and sentence by the Trial Court did not call for any interference

Appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person of the complainant party was hit and died, whereas the other become injured

Prosecution for ocular account had put injured and took help from previous statement of complainant recorded in an earlier case for corroboration, yet it was lurking on legal premises with respect to its method of tendering into evidence

Before embarking upon testimony of injured, role of accused with respect to injury on the head of deceased was examined in the light of medical evidence and position of parties at the crime scene

Entry wound on left pinna of ear was notpossible from point of presence of accused and the deceased with stated positions who were facing each other, when the witness deposed that they alighted from their bikes

Other stance of turning back the bikes though was not proved, yet for the sake of argument, if it was considered that seeing the assailant, deceased tried to turn back and in that position received the fire, then deceased must have fallen from the motor bike and corresponding injuries due to fall should have been on his person which were missing in the post mortem report and deposition of doctor

Injured was also sitting at rear seat but did not have such injuries on his person

Injured admitted that both the parties related inter se and developed enmity was also evident

Injured witness faced certain confrontation during his deposition before the court which he could not justifiably accounted for

Said witness admitted that near the place of occurrence, number of people resided but none of them came forward to support the prosecution version

Accused also claimed his marriage with sister of that witness who was later divorced yet that fact was denied by said witness

Similarly, said witness denied the suggestion that he in fact committed the murder of deceased, which was the first version of accused before Investigating Officer, yet prosecution could not rebut those facts due to non-appearance of Investigating Officer

Injured witness admitted that he and a witness were resident of another village while deceased and complainant were resident of another place which was at a distance of 1 x 1½ kilometer from the place of occurrence

Injured resident of ¾ acres from the place of occurrence and was aware of the area and the people around him

Injured, he reached the hospital after four hours despite he was seriously injured

Though Medical Officer had observed duration of his injury about six hours which created serious doubt about time and place of occurrence

Yet place of occurrence could also be not proved because of the reason that Investigating Officer as well as draftsman could not appear as being dead

Transposition of statement of draftsman was not according to law and secondary evidence for Investigating Officer did not establish the fact under discussion

Testimony of that witness with stammered presentation did not ring true particularly when he had already stood disbelieved in the previous trial for his own injuries

Evidence of injured could not be stretched against the accused for sustaining the conviction and sentence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death

Appreciation of evidence

Sentence, reduction in

Injured witness

Scope

Accused was charged for intruding into the house of complainant while armed with a pistol and committed murder of 13 years aged nephew of complainant, during the incident complainant and his bhabi (sister-in-law) also received injuries from the pistol shots fired by accused

Injured witness was the mother of slain boy and was having abode within the four-walls of the house wherein the incident occurred

Gleaned from the deposition of injured witness that she was house-hold lady thus in accordance with daily pursuit of life she should have been present at a place none other than her house

Acclaimed presence of injured witness could not legally be suspected, more importantly when the defence had not brought anything to the contrary on record

Even otherwise, the presence of a witness, who was an inmate of the house wherein crime scene of a murder case was situated, was to be accepted in the absence of some convincing material to the contrary brought on record by the defence

More importantly, when the injured witness was not having some axe to grind with the assailant

Medical Officer found injured witness to be in receipt of firearm injuries on right arm and back of her chest

No material or circumstance was brought on record by the defence from which it might be insinuated that traumas on the body of injured witness were self-suffered or fabricated

In the absence of some exceptional circumstances put forth by the defence, the injuries on the person of a witness were generally considered stamp of his/her presence at the spot of murder incident

Injured witness unwaveringly encountered the cross-examination of defence and provided confidence inspiring detail of the incident

Said injured witness implicated none but the accused for the injuries on her person as well as the trauma which led to the death of her son

Said witness had an option to spread a wider net so as to implicate in the case at least one more person by attributing him either her own injury or of her son but she opted not to do so

Said aspect reflected positively upon the intrinsic worth of her testimony persuading to accept as correct what she deposed in the court

Injured witness had no rancorous against the accused for his false implication in the case and that too through the tool of substitution

Since the deposition of injured witness was befitting with the medical evidence hence, it was lent to place explicit reliance upon it for adjudicating the guilt of accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case but due to non-proving of motive part of the occurrence, the sentence was reduced to imprisonment for life

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with modification in sentence.

Mere injuries on the person of injured witness would not stamp him the truthful witness.

Injuries of a witness was only an indication of his presence at the spot but was not informative proof of his credibility and truth.

Presence of witness did not mean that his statement be accepted without applying the principle for appreciation of evidence

Statement of injured witness could not be accepted as gospel truth and could not be implicitly accepted without appreciation.

Mere stamp of injuries on the person of a witness would not be a proof of the fact that whatever he deposed would be the truthful account of the events

Veracity of injured witness was to be tested from the circumstances of the case and his own statement, whether the same fit in the circumstances of the case or otherwise.

Injury on the persons of a witness in not an in-built guarantee that whatever he states is the truth and not less than truth

Injured witness loses his evidentiary value, if it is found that he is inimical, interested and responsible for dishonest declaration by involving the persons as accused one after the other.

Witness's presence at the place of occurrence cannot be disputed or doubted because of injuries on his body.

Merely injury on the body of a person would not stamp him/her truthful witness.

Injuries on a prosecution witness only indicate his presence at the spot but what he deposes cannot be accepted as gospel truth; his testimony must be evaluated on its own merits in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Argument that presence of injured witness could not be doubted at the place of occurrence due to the injuries on their person had no substance because merely the injury on the body of a person would not stamp him/her truthful witness.

Stamp of injuries on the person of a witness could be a proof of his presence at the place of occurrence, however, it could never be held that he would also tell the truth

Facts which an injured witness narrated were not to be implicitly accepted rather they were to be attested and appraised on the principles applied for the appreciation of evidence of any prosecution witness regardless of him being injured or not.

Injured witness would not be relied upon ipso facto, because of injuries but it was to be examined that whether the evidence was trustworthy and confidence inspiring.

FIR though was lodged with a delay of one day but it appeared that the police had received information on the day of the occurrence and the police officials had referred the injured to hospital, therefore, delay in lodging FIR was the fault of SHO (Station House Officer of Police Station)

Complainant had no enmity with the accused to involve him falsely by taking advantage of delay

Sole injured eye-witness had adhered to the prosecution version word by word and had fully supported the prosecution case by giving all necessary details

Medical evidence had corroborated the statement of complainant

Presence of complainant on the spot was also established on the basis of injuries received by him

Prosecution had successfully established the charge against the accused

Appeal was dismissed.

Mere interest of a injured witness is no ground to reject his evidence when his presence during the occurrence cannot be doubted

Injured witness would be the last person to leave out the real culprits and implicate others falsely.

Eye-witness was not related to the complainant and was resident of the same vicinity, therefore, he was a natural and independent eye-witness

Injured eye-witness had also supported the prosecution case and since he had sustained injuries, therefore, his presence on the spot was established

Mode and manner of occurrence narrated by the prosecution witnesses, whereby the absconding co-accused had inflicted dagger blows on the deceased and the accused had attacked the injured eye-witness, clearly showed that the accused persons duly armed with weapons had come to the spot in a pre-planned manner and as such shared common intention

Prosecution had established its case beyond any shadow of doubt

Judgment and conviction recorded by Trial Court was maintained and appeal was dismissed.

Injuries on a prosecution witness only indicate his presence at the spot but what he deposes cannot be accepted as gospel truth

Testimony of such witness must be evaluated on its own merits in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Stamps of injuries on the person of the witness might have established his presence at the relevant time at a particular place of occurrence but the injuries itself were not the proof that whatever the witness was telling was truth.

Statement of injured witness straightway could not be taken as a gospel truth in stricto sensu, rather it required to be scrutinized with more care and caution while juxtaposing with other independent circumstances, because after receipt of injury, the vindictiveness enhanced.

Facts narrated by an injured witness are not to be implicitly accepted rather he was to be attested and appraised on the principle applied for the appreciation of evidence of any prosecution witness regardless of his being injured or not.

Injury on the body of a person does not stamp him as a truthful witness.

If an injured witness did not appear to charge the accused for his injury without any disability or incompetence or any reason for not appearing then conviction for causing such injury could not be recorded on the basis of other evidence.

No doubt that the presence of the injured witnesses could not be doubted at the place of incident, however, if said witnesses were otherwise untruthful then their testimony was to be excluded from consideration.

Eye-witnesses claimed that they shifted the deceased to the hospital for medical treatment but the lady doctor who medically examined the deceased stated during cross-examination that the injured was accompanied by her aunt

Aunt of deceased had not named the accused before medical officer rather had stated that someone threw acid on the deceased

Aunt of deceased was not produced during investigation or brought before the Trial Court and as such the prosecution withheld best available evidence

Adverse inference could be drawn that had she been produced before the Trial Court, she would not have supported the prosecution case

Probable duration of the injury, as per doctor, was within twelve hours, which suggested that the injured was brought to the hospital after consuming time

Contention that presence of complainant at the place of occurrence could not be doubted due to the burnt injury on his person had no substance because injury on the body of a person did not stamp him/her as truthful witness

Trial Court had not charged or convicted the accused for the burnt injury allegedly caused to the complainant

Prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal was allowed, conviction and sentence awarded to the accused was set aside.

Statement of prosecution witness should have been recorded as promptly as possible, without giving him any opportunity to improve upon and subtract from what he had seen

Delay in recording such statement was likely to give an opportunity to the witness to concoct a different version

Injured witness, during the cross-examination, stated that he did not remember the date on which his statement was recorded nor he remembered the place

Witness further deposed that he had not appeared before the Investigating Officer after the occurrence in connection with the investigation of the case

Circumstances established that testimony of injured witness created doubt about date and place of recording his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.

Testimony of such witness had proved fatal and sounded death knell for the prosecution case.

Mere having a stamp of injury on the body of the person would not mean that whatever he had said was nothing but a whole truth

Evidence of injured witness could be accepted if the same was corroborated by some other evidence

If circumstantial aspect of a case did not support the ocular account furnished by injured witness, then his evidence could not be taken into account despite the fact that he had suffered injuries on his person.

Statement of an injured witness generally, was to be considered very reliable; and it was unlikely that he would spare the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else

Testimony of such witness had its own relevancy and efficacy, as he had sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence which would lend support to his testimony that he was present at the time and place of occurrence

Testimony of injured witness was accorded a special status in law; he was a witness that came with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime

Very convincing evidence was required to discredit the testimony of an injured witness.

Mere stamp of injuries on the person of witness is not a proof of the fact that whatever he deposed was truthful account of events

Veracity of injured witness is to be tested from circumstances of the case and his own statement whether it fits in circumstances of the case or otherwise.

Credibility of witness which matters and not mere injuries on his person to give him status of truthful witness.

Complainant bearing stamp of injury only indicates presence of witness at relevant time but it is not guarantee of truthfulness

General rule of appreciation of evidence in criminal jurisprudence is that want of interest or absence of enmity does not stamp statement of a particular witness with presumption of truth and that much depends on intrinsic value of statement of a witness

Real test is as to whether statement of witness is in consonance with probabilities, whether it fits in with other evidence and whether it inspires confidence in mind.

Out of twelve accused persons, ten were acquitted by Trial Court and two were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life

Validity

Three eye-witnesses of occurrence out of which presence of injured witness having injury on his person was proved, however, the stamp of fire-arm injury on his person was not per se tantamount to stamp of credence of his testimony and was not proof of credibility and truth of his evidence

Evidence of such witness was to be considered keeping in view the circumstances of case and other evidence collected by Investigating Officer during investigation

All witnesses were fully aware of having knowledge of the kind of weapons and it was alleged against one of the accused that he was armed with rifle and caused rifle shot injury to injured prosecution witness whereas according to prosecution one Kalashnikov was recovered on his pointation and not rifle

Recovery of rifle was made with delay of three months after the incident and six days after arrest of accused

Mashirnamas of recovery of weapons did not show that weapons were sealed at the spot, no forensic report regarding working condition of weapon was exhibited during trial

Trial Court did not appreciate prosecution evidence according to settled principles

On the same evidence co-accused were acquitted while accused persons were convicted without assigning sound reasons though prosecution case against accused persons more or less to some extent was also in the same line as that of the case of co-accused who have been acquitted

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons by Trial Court and by extending benefit of doubt, they were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.