Injured Witness Testimony Prevails Over Minor Discrepancies and Defective Investigation in Group Assault Convictions

The informant, Sewa Dass (PW7), requested the accused to remove stones and wood obstructing a public passage on 31.03.2004

The accused persons (Brij Lal, Baldev Raj, Dina Nath, Ramesh Chand, Anup, Anish Kumar, Kanta Devi, and Meena Devi) allegedly assaulted the informant and his family members with sticks and a bat

Medical examinations revealed multiple injuries, including a fracture on the informant's right fibula

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 147, 323, and 325 read with 149 of the IPC, but acquitted them under Section 506

The Appellate Court upheld this conviction on 01.08.2013

The petitioners filed this revision challenging the concurrent findings based on the testimony of "interested witnesses" and pending civil litigation

1. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, can re-appreciate evidence to overturn concurrent findings of fact in the absence of perversity?

2. Whether the testimonies of injured witnesses can be discarded due to minor contradictions and existing enmity between the parties?

3. Whether the failure of the prosecution to recover all weapons or seize blood-stained clothes is fatal to the case?

The court applied Section 397 of the CrPC, emphasizing that revisional jurisdiction is narrow and intended only to correct patent defects or errors of law, not for re-appreciation of facts

The court relied on Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh and Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar regarding the limited scope of revision

Regarding evidence, it applied the principle that enmity is a "double-edged weapon" providing both a motive for crime and false implication

It followed Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra regarding the high evidentiary value of injured witnesses

The doctrine that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one, false in all) is not applicable in India, citing State of Punjab v. Hari Singh

The Court observed that the revisional power cannot be treated as a second appeal; since the Trial and Appellate courts provided reasoned findings, the High Court would not intervene unless the judgment was "perverse" or "grossly erroneous"

The Court found the witnesses' testimonies to have a "ring of truth" despite minor discrepancies in the sequence of arrival at the spot, noting that memory fades over three years

The presence of "bleeding injuries" corroborated by medical evidence (PW3) established the witnesses’ presence at the scene

Suggestions put by the defense to witnesses (confirming stones were kept at the spot) were held to bind the accused

The Court ruled that "remissness of the Investigating Officer," such as failing to seize clothes or all sticks, does not entitle the accused to acquittal when ocular evidence is credible

The common object of the unlawful assembly was established as the members arrived armed and acted together to cause hurt.

The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the conviction and the one-year sentence under Section 325 read with 149 IPC, ruling it was not excessive given the premeditated nature of the assault.