Credible Injured-Witness Testimony Sustains Conviction; Sentence Reduced for Four-Decade Delay

On 12 May 1985, Ganga Charan was stabbed in the upper-right abdomen.

He testified that the appellant stabbed him after demanding ₹500 and that he was taken to hospital by his brother, Tara Chandra, who later lodged the FIR naming the appellant.

The FIR was registered at 6:50 p.m.; the injured had been medically examined at 12:45 p.m. and underwent surgery that day.

The prosecution examined the injured, the complainant, the investigating officer, the doctor, and the formal FIR witness; the two eyewitnesses named in the FIR were not produced.

The appellant presented three defence witnesses and denied the allegations in his statement under Section 313 CrPC.

The trial court convicted him under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. He appealed against that judgment and sentence.

Whether the injured witness’s testimony, considered with the medical evidence and the FIR, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed an offence under Section 307 IPC, despite the defence challenges and the non-production of the other named eyewitnesses.

Whether the appellant’s sentence should be reduced given the passage of more than 40 years since the incident.

Section 307 IPC governs an attempt to murder.

The Court applied the principle that an injured witness is generally a reliable witness because the injury supports the witness’s presence at the scene, and convincing evidence is required to discredit such testimony (*Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh* and *Balraje v. State of Maharashtra*).

It also referred to the “sterling witness” standard in *Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State of NCT of Delhi*.

It also held that ocular testimony may prevail over a medical opinion based on probability (*Haalesh @ Haleshi @ Kurubara Haleshi v. State of Karnataka*).

Minor discrepancies that do not go to the root of the case should not be given undue weight, and proof beyond reasonable doubt does not require proof beyond every shadow of doubt (*Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh*; *Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan*; *Iqbal Moosa Patel v. State of Gujarat*).

In considering sentence, the Court relied on *Krishna Kumar Kedia v. Union of India*, which recognised that the age of the incident and resulting circumstances may support a reduction in sentence.

The Court accepted Ganga Charan’s account identifying the appellant as the assailant, finding it supported by the prompt medical examination, the fresh stab wound to the abdomen, the same-day surgery, and the blood-stained clothing.

It considered the delay in lodging the FIR adequately explained by the priority given to medical treatment.

The Court found no material ambiguity in the injured witness’s or complainant’s evidence and rejected the defence evidence as unpersuasive, noting that the defence witnesses had not reported the alleged false implication to the authorities despite learning of it earlier.

It therefore upheld the conviction.

Separately, it considered the passage of more than 40 years since the incident a sufficient basis to reduce the sentence.

It partly allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence from seven to four years’ rigorous imprisonment, with the period already served to be set off against the sentence.

As the appellant was on bail, the Court cancelled his bail bond and sureties and directed him to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.