Injured Witness Testimony Corroborated by Medical Evidence Overrides Trial Court’s Reliance on Numerical Disparity

The case arose from a violent clash on November 18, 2006, regarding the construction of a school on shrine (Mazar) land in village Khiribandh.

The prosecution alleged that Md. Shamsher fired a country-made pistol at the victim, Sams Tabrej, on the orders of Chand Alam, causing a grievous bullet injury to the back.

While the police initially charge-sheeted only Shamsher (Sessions Trial No. 259/2007), the Trial Court later summoned 14 other accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (Sessions Trial No. 259(A)/2007).

Despite testimony from the injured victim and corroborating medical evidence showing a close-range firearm injury, the Trial Court acquitted all accused on January 11, 2018, citing numerical disparity between the factions and branding witnesses as "interested".

1. Whether the prosecution proved the specific overt acts of Chand Alam (ordering the fire) and Shamsher (firing the shot) beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the testimony of an injured witness can be discarded solely due to "interestedness" or minor discrepancies.

3. Whether the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal was perverse or against the weight of evidence.

The Court applied Section 307 (Attempt to murder), Section 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), and Sections 147, 148, and 149 (Unlawful assembly) of the IPC, alongside Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court relied on the "stamped witness" doctrine from State of U.P. v. Naresh, holding that an injured witness's testimony is accorded special status as they are unlikely to spare the actual assailant.

The court applied Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa regarding the reliability of related witnesses and Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat regarding the corroborative value of medical evidence.

The Court invoked Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. to establish that defective investigation does not vitiate a trial if ocular evidence is reliable.

The High Court found the Trial Court’s reasoning fundamentally flawed for ignoring the "ring of truth" in the injured victim’s (PW-7) testimony.

The Court observed that PW-7’s account was consistently corroborated by the informant (PW-8) and medical evidence (PW-9), the latter of which identified "tattooing" around the wound—a clinical sign of close-range firing that matched the ocular version.

The Court rejected the Trial Court's emphasis on "numerical disparity," noting that in village settings, a smaller group can still be the aggressor.

The Court held that while the investigation was "slipshod" (missing bullet exhibits and non-examination of senior officers), the ocular and medical evidence was sufficiently "clear, cogent, and consistent" to override investigative lapses.

The Court allowed both appeals, convicting Shamsher under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and convicting Chand Alam and others under Sections 307/149, 324/149, and 147/148 IPC. Shamsher was sentenced to 7 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 25,000, while the other respondents received 5 years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 15,000 each.

The Court ordered the respondents to surrender within four weeks and directed that fines collected be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.