Testimony of injured witness prevails over minor medical inconsistencies and non-recovery of weapon or property.

On December 15, 2000, at 6:00 PM, the informant, Umakant Sah (PW-9), was intercepted by the appellants and an unknown person near Trikoni River

Appellant No. 1 (Harihar Thakur) allegedly ordered Appellant No. 2 (Arjun Thakur) to shoot Sah due to professional rivalry in medical practice

Sah sustained a gunshot wound to the back that exited through his stomach, and was subsequently stabbed 16 times before the assailants fled with his motorcycle

The informant was treated at St. Luke’s Mission Hospital and later referred to SSKM Hospital, Kolkata

The Trial Court (Sessions Judge, Pakur) convicted the appellants under Sections 307/34 and 397 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act on February 26, 2003

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of hearsay evidence, non-examination of the main I.O., and lack of medical corroboration regarding the number of injuries

Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from any serious error of law or fact requiring interference in appeal.

The Court applied Sections 307 (Attempt to murder), 397 (Robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), and 34 (Common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act

It relied on Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the doctrine of res gestae, validating the testimony of hearsay witnesses who arrived immediately after the occurrence

Furthermore, the Court applied established precedents regarding the "special status" of an injured witness, specifically citing Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. (2010), State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand (2004), and State of U.P. v. Naresh (2011), which hold that the testimony of a stamped witness carries a built-in guarantee of presence and reliability

The Court determined that the testimony of the informant (PW-9) was consistent and credible despite minor contradictions regarding professional rivalry and the exact number of wounds

The Court noted that PW-3 (Medical Officer) corroborated the grievous nature of the injuries, including the protruding intestine and sharp-cut wounds, and specifically opined that the entry/exit holes were consistent with bullet penetration

Although the defense argued that the non-production of original Kolkata medical records and non-recovery of the motorcycle were fatal, the Court dismissed these as technical defects that do not override the reliable testimony of a "stamped" injured witness

The Court found the presence of other witnesses (PW-2, PW-7, PW-8) at the scene immediately after the shooting constituted relevant evidence under the doctrine of res gestae

It held that the evidence of an injured witness is highly reliable as they are unlikely to shield the real culprit

The Court cancelled the appellants' bail bonds and directed them to surrender within two months to serve the remainder of their sentences