Non-examination of the investigating officer does not invalidate conviction where injured-witness testimony is reliable and medically corroborated.

On 1 June 1993, during a land dispute between pattidars, the prosecution alleged that the appellants and other accused, armed with farsa, bhujali and garasa, assaulted Kawaldeo Singh while he was ploughing his field.

An FIR was registered as Siswan P.S. Case No. 44 of 1993 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court after submission of the charge-sheet.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 307, 148, 149 and 326 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment of up to five years, with the sentences to run concurrently.

During the appeal, appellant nos. 1, 5 and 6 were reported dead, and the appeal abated against them. The appeal consequently continued against appellant nos. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8.

Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer caused such prejudice to the defence as to require setting aside the conviction.

Whether the testimony of the injured witnesses, corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the appellants’ conviction under Sections 307, 326, 148 and 149 IPC.

Whether, having regard to the age of the case, the appellants’ age, absence of subsequent complaints and the period already undergone, the sentence should be reduced.

The Court applied Sections 307, 326, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code: Section 307 concerns attempt to murder, Section 326 concerns voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means, Section 148 concerns rioting armed with a deadly weapon, and Section 149 imposes constructive liability on members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in prosecution of its common object.

The Court also applied the principle that the testimony of injured witnesses ordinarily carries substantial evidentiary weight, particularly where it is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence.

Non-examination of the Investigating Officer may cause prejudice where the defence is deprived of material contradictions or proof regarding the place and manner of occurrence, but it does not automatically invalidate an otherwise reliable prosecution case.

The Court found the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4 and 5—who were injured victims and, in the case of P.W. 5, the informant—to be trustworthy and materially corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 8 regarding the nature of the injuries and use of sharp-edged weapons.

Although the Investigating Officer was not examined and this omission caused prejudice to the defence, the Court held that the omission alone could not justify acquittal because the injured witnesses had specifically supported the prosecution version and there was no sufficient reason to disbelieve them.

However, while determining sentence, the Court considered that the occurrence was more than three decades old, most appellants were over 55 years of age, no subsequent complaint had been made, and the appellants had undergone more than two months’ custody after conviction before being released on bail.

As against appellant nos. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8, the Court upheld the convictions under Sections 307, 326, 148 and 149 IPC, holding that the prosecution evidence was reliable despite the non-examination of the Investigating Officer.

The substantive sentences were modified and reduced to the period already undergone, and the appeal was accordingly disposed of.