Testimony of injured witness prevails over non-recovery of weapon and lack of corroboration by hostile witnesses.

The appellant (A1), along with three co-accused (A2-A4), was charged under Sections 307/506/34 of the IPC for an incident occurring on 16.07.2018.

The prosecution alleged that the accused persons, in furtherance of common intention, abused the complainant's brother (PW2) and stabbed him in the right thigh with a knife.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 308 (Attempt to commit culpable homicide) read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds of misappreciation of evidence, lack of recovery from A1, and hostile witnesses.

1. Whether there is any legal or evidentiary infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

The Court primarily applied Section 308 of the IPC regarding attempt to commit culpable homicide, noting that the act must be committed with such intention or knowledge that, if death ensued, the accused would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The court relied on the evidentiary principle that the testimony of an injured witness is accorded special status as their injury serves as an "in-built guarantee" of their presence, citing Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab.

Furthermore, per Rakesh v. State of U.P., the non-recovery of the weapon of offence is not fatal to the prosecution case if the evidence is otherwise reliable.

The Court observed that while the FIR-first informant (CW1) was not examined and several witnesses like PW3 (brother) and PW4 (neighbour) did not identify the assailants, the testimony of the injured witness (PW2) remained consistent and credible.

The Court found that PW2 had no prior enmity with A1, making a false implication unlikely.

The medical evidence provided by PW9 confirmed the injuries as "grievous," supporting the application of Section 308.

The Court rejected the defense’s alternative theory of a financial dispute, noting it was an afterthought not put to PW2 during cross-examination.

The Court emphasized that the lack of physical recovery from A1 did not vitiate the case, as his active role (holding the victim's hand while the co-accused stabbed him) established common intention under Section 34 IPC.

It affirmed that the testimony of an injured witness prevails over minor discrepancies or the hostility of other witnesses.

The Court found no infirmity in the Trial Court's judgment; consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence under Section 308/34 IPC were upheld.