- The Delhi HC in the case of Saleem Khan vs The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), while upholding the conviction of the accused under section 307 read with section 324 of IPC has held that the testimony of the injured eyewitness is credible even in the face of procedural irregularities like the non-examination of the public witness and non-recovery of the offensive weapons.
- In the instant case, the convict assaulted the injured witness on multiple occasions leading to an FIR under section 308/34 of IPC. He was further threatened by the accused because of this case, and he and his friend were assaulted at night, while they were on their way to a medical store. The injuries were on his vital body parts like the neck and the shoulder, and the weapon of offence was a knife.
- The doctor’s reports also suggested that the injuries were sharp and incisive and could have been brought about by a knife.
- During the examination, the Investigating Officer deposed that the weapon of offence could not be recovered. This was raised by the appellant in the appeal. Other discrepancies were also highlighted by the applicant, like the absence of blood stained clothes, the non-examination of the injured witnesses, etc.
- The Court brushed aside all these contentions and held that the testimony of the injured witness was found to be highly reliable as it was consistent on all other aspects.
- The Court placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of UP vs. Naresh and ors. (2011) where it was held that the presence of the injured witness at the scene of the crime cannot be disputed and his testimony should be given due weightage. It is presumed that the injured witness would not let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness can be relied upon unless there are cogent grounds for the rejection of his evidence.
- Two very important points were mentioned by the HC in this case, the first being that the recovery of the weapon of offence cannot be a necessary prerequisite for the conviction of the accused. The Court cited the case of Rakesh and anr. vs. State of UP (2021) SC in support of its contention.
- Secondly, the Court held that the non-examination of the public witness is not significant when the testimony of the injured witness is corroborated by the medical reports and another injured witness. The injuries were also of a grievous nature.
- The Court relied upon the case of Sadakat Kotwal and anr. vs. State of Jharkhand (2021) SC where the Apex Court has held that no one can enter the mind of the accused for the purpose of deciphering his intention. The same has to be ascertained from the weapon that has been used, the part of the body chosen and the nature of the injury caused.
- Thus, the Hon’ble HC upheld the decision of the lower Court convicting the accused.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
