Consistency in Injured Victim’s Testimony Prevails Over Minor Medical Discrepancies and Procedural Lapses in Attempted Murder Conviction

The Appellants challenged their conviction by the Trial Court for attempt to murder (Section 307/34 IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that on November 23, 2020, Appellant No. 2 (Ranjeet Singh) intercepted the informant (PW-1) and exhorted Appellant No. 1 (Vicky Singh) to kill her.

Appellant No. 1 subsequently fired two shots, hitting the victim in the back.

The Appellants argued that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony, citing only one entry wound despite two alleged shots, and noted procedural lapses including a delay in lodging the FIR and the non-seizure of the weapon.

1. Whether the ocular testimony of an injured witness is sufficient for conviction despite minor discrepancies with medical reports.

2. Whether Section 34 of the IPC was rightly invoked against the co-accused who did not fire the weapon but exhorted the main assailant.

3. Whether procedural lapses by the investigating agency, such as delayed FIR transmission and non-seizure of evidence, vitiate the trial.

Section 307 (Attempt to murder) and Section 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The ocular evidence of an injured witness/victim is of "sterling quality" and generally prevails over medical opinion unless the medical evidence totally rules out the ocular version.

Section 34 IPC is attracted when an act is pre-planned and executed in furtherance of a shared intent, evidenced by the presence and conduct (exhortation) of the accused at the scene.

The Court held that PW-1, as an injured witness, was highly credible and her testimony stood firm under cross-examination.

Regarding the medical discrepancy (one entry wound vs. two shots), the Court reasoned that medical jurisprudence allows for variations in wound sizes (exit vs. entry) based on tissue density and path; further, minor contradictions between a doctor's oral testimony and the written injury report do not override the victim's consistent account.

The Court dismissed the challenge to Section 34 IPC against Ranjeet Singh, noting the "sequence of events"—intercepting the victim and ordering the shooting—clearly indicated a pre-planned common intention.

Procedural lapses by the police, such as the failure to seize blood-stained clothes or the firearm, were termed "careless" but not fatal to the prosecution's case given the "credible evidences available on record".

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for both appellants, and Appellant No. 2, who was on bail, was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve his sentence.