Evidence Of Injured Witness Not At Higher Pedestal If Accused Also Injured ; Injury Guarantees Presence, Not Truth Of Deposition : Allahabad HC
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II dismissed a complainant’s appeal challenging the acquittal of three individuals in a 2018 assault case. The Court ultimately upheld the trial court’s finding that the prosecution had not established the charges beyond reasonable doubt, citing contradictions between the complainant’s statement and medical evidence, lack of corroboration, and unexplained delay in initiating proceedings. While noting that the account of an injured witness is generally accorded significant weight, the Bench clarified that this does not automatically strengthen the prosecution’s case when the accused is also shown to have suffered injuries. The judges further observed that injury may confirm a witness’s presence but does not assure the reliability of the testimony.
The case arose from an incident alleged to have occurred on 28 May 2018, when the complainant stated that he was assaulted near the residence of the accused. According to the complaint, the accused surrounded him, inflicted injuries using a knife, and beat him with kicks and fists. He claimed that he attempted to lodge a report at the local police station, but no FIR was registered, after which he filed a complaint before the Magistrate. The Magistrate recorded pre-summoning evidence and issued process against the accused for offences under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The matter was later committed to the Sessions Court, where charges were framed and the accused pleaded not guilty.
During trial, the prosecution examined the complainant as an injured witness and produced the doctor who conducted the medico-legal examination. The medical report recorded multiple injuries, including lacerated wounds and an incised wound, with some injuries noted to be caused by a blunt object. No supplementary medical report was produced. The prosecution did not examine the independent witnesses who had earlier been named during pre-summoning proceedings.
The accused denied the allegations and asserted that there was a dispute regarding passage rights. They also stated that they had informed the police at the time of the incident, leading to proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. against both sides. It was further recorded that one of the accused had also sustained injuries during the incident.
The Court recorded that “the version of manner of incident as narrated by the complainant does not find support from medical evidence available on record.” It observed that while the complainant alleged that “his three fingers were cut,” the medico-legal report recorded only “one injury of incised wound… whereas other injuries were of lacerated wounds.” The Bench noted that “lacerated wounds may have been caused by stones or bricks but it is not the case of prosecution.” It further stated that the complainant’s own version that he did not fall during the assault made such injuries improbable.
The Court recorded that no supplementary medical report was produced and noted that “nature of the injuries is neither grievous nor fatal.” Regarding delay, the Court observed that although the incident occurred on 28.05.2018, “the complaint… has been instituted on 12.06.2018 with delay of 16 days and no justifiable explanation… has come forward.” The Bench referred to the photocopy of an alleged application to the SSP but stated that “the said application was also not proved.”
The Bench noted that the complainant concealed the fact that “proceedings under section 107/116 Cr.P.C. were initiated against both the parties,” a circumstance held to weaken the prosecution version. It also stated that the complainant admitted that “accused-opposite party 3 Atul was also medically examined,” indicating that the accused too sustained injuries, which the complainant did not disclose in his complaint or examination-in-chief.
Regarding the evidentiary value of a sole injured witness, the Court stated that although such testimony carries weight, “injury on the person of a witness… is no guarantee of the truth of his deposition.” It found the testimony of P.W.–1 to be “embedded with material contradictions, severe infirmities and inherent improbabilities.” The Court observed that witnesses examined at the pre-summoning stage under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were not produced during trial, leaving the prosecution case resting solely on the complainant’s testimony.
The Court recorded that “the testimony of injured P.W.–1 can be classified in category of ‘neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable’.” It then stated that in such circumstances “it would be extremely hazardous to convict the accused.” The Bench concluded that the trial court’s reasons were “based upon due evaluation of allegations… in the light of evidence on record.” It ultimately held that “we could not come across any such fact… which can be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous.”
The Court recorded: “we do not find any perversity in the judgment so as to interfere with the findings returned by Court below. The conclusion drawn by Court below is the outcome of due appreciation of evidence on record. We have ourselves evaluated the evidence on record… however, we could not gather any new fact… so as to conclude that the conclusion drawn by Court below is against the weight of evidence.”
“We, therefore, do not find any good ground to entertain the present appeal filed under Section 413 BNSS, which consequently fails and is, accordingly dismissed.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Appellant: Jata Shankar Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondents: Learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttar Pradesh
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC:204014-DB
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Application U/S 419 BNSS No. 230 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, Justice Rajeev Misra
