Testimony of Injured Witness and Forensic Evidence Override Minor Procedural Inconsistencies and Non-Examination of Informants

The Appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, for attacking his neighbor, Lalit Singh (PW-1), with a Khukri on 14.10.2021.

The assault resulted in multiple lacerations to the head and face, and a severe injury to the right forearm that necessitated amputation below the elbow.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of the injured witness (PW-1), medical evidence (PW-8, PW-9), and the recovery of the weapon at the Appellant's instance.

The Trial Court sentenced the Appellant to 10 years R.I. each under Sections 307 and 326 of the IPC, and 3 years under the Arms Act, directing sentences to run consecutively.

The Appellant challenged the conviction citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the non-examination of a material witness.

1. Whether the testimonies of the injured witness and supporting witnesses were sufficient to sustain a conviction despite minor inconsistencies and the non-examination of one witness.

2. Whether the sentences awarded for different offenses arising out of the same transaction should run consecutively or concurrently.

The Court primarily applied Sections 307 (Attempt to murder) and 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) of the IPC.

In Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra (2023) and Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010), it was established that the testimony of an injured witness possesses high evidentiary value and a "built-in guarantee" of presence at the crime scene, and should not be discarded due to minor contradictions.

The general rule is that sentences for offenses committed in a single transaction typically run concurrently.

The Court found the testimony of PW-1 to be credible and corroborated by medical evidence (PW-8 and PW-9), which confirmed that the injuries were life-threatening and led to permanent disability.

The Court rejected the defense's plea regarding the non-examination of "Bhawna," ruling that the quality of evidence—specifically the injured victim's direct account—outweighs the quantity of witnesses.

The recovery of the blood-stained Khukri further linked the Appellant to the crime.

While maintaining the conviction, the Court observed that the incident arose from a property dispute (enmity over a cowshed) and that the Appellant had already served over four years.

Noting that the Trial Court provided no specific reason for consecutive sentencing, the High Court determined that concurrent sentencing was more appropriate for offenses arising from the same incident.

It reduced the sentences under Sections 307 and 326 IPC from 10 years to 7 years R.I. each and ordered that all sentences (including the 3-year term under the Arms Act) shall run concurrently rather than consecutively.

The Appellant was directed to serve out the remainder of the modified sentence.