Testimony of an injured witness carries special legal status and requires strong grounds for rejection.

On April 6, 2002, a police team including Head Constable (HC) Suresh Kumar intercepted a vehicle and deflated its tyres by gunfire to apprehend suspects; while one Rakesh @ Rahul was caught, the Appellant, Ajay @ Shantu, allegedly escaped

On April 8, 2002, while HC Suresh was returning home, the Appellant and his associates accosted him, and the Appellant stabbed him in the abdomen and thigh with a knife

During the assault, the Appellant allegedly identified himself as "Shantu" and expressed anger over the previous shooting incident

The assailants also robbed the victim of his personal belongings

Following a Test Identification Parade (TIP) where the victim identified the Appellant, a chargesheet was filed

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 307, 392, 394, and 397 of the IPC, sentencing him to various terms, the maximum being seven years RI

The Appellant appealed, alleging false implication and improper identification

1. Whether the prosecution established the identity of the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the validity of the Test Identification Parade (TIP)

2. Whether the testimony of the injured witness (HC Suresh Kumar) was sufficient to sustain a conviction despite allegations of police fabrication

3. Whether the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the assault satisfied the ingredients of "attempt to murder" under Section 307 IPC

4. Whether the Appellant was entitled to a reduction in sentence based on clean antecedents and family responsibilities

The Court applied Sections 307, 392, 394, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding attempt to murder and aggravated robbery

It relied on State of U.P. v. Naresh & Ors. (2011) and Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010), which establish that the testimony of an injured witness is accorded special status and is generally considered reliable as they are unlikely to spare the actual assailant

Regarding Section 307, the Court applied Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh (1988) and Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana (2008) to determine that "intention" is gathered from the weapon used, the body part targeted, and the severity of the blow, regardless of whether death occurred

The Court rejected the plea of false implication, noting that the Appellant was identified both in a judicially supervised TIP and in open court, with no evidence of impropriety in the proceedings

The Court emphasized the "built-in guarantee" of the injured witness's presence at the scene, finding no reason for the victim to self-inflict serious abdominal and thigh wounds merely to frame the Appellant

The medical evidence, showing incised wounds from a sharp weapon, corroborated the victim's account of the stabbing

On the issue of intent under Section 307, the Court found that the Appellant’s utterances—specifically referencing the previous law enforcement action—and the use of a knife on vital body parts clearly manifested a murderous intent

Regarding sentencing, the Court observed that the Appellant's aggressive behavior in prison and prior criminal involvement outweighed mitigating factors like family responsibilities

It held that the prosecution successfully proved the Appellant's identity and intent through the reliable testimony of the injured victim and corroborating medical evidence

The appeal was dismissed, and the Appellant was ordered to surrender forthwith to serve the remainder of his sentence