The testimony of an injured witness is generally considered reliable, and medical evidence plays a crucial role in confirming the involvement of the accused.

S.P. Garg, J.

1. Ram Kishan, Ramesh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Suresh, Rajbir & Krishan were arrested in case FIR No. 13/1991 registered at PS Delhi Cantt and sent for trial for committing offences punishable under Sections 302/325/34 IPC on the allegations that on 09.01.1991 at 06.30 P.M. at Stall No.8, Sadar Bazar, Delhi they formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object committed murder of Jagdish by inflicting injuries with lathies on his body. They also caused injuries to Jagjit Singh. Both Jagjit Singh and Jagdish were taken to DDU Hospital. Jagdish was referred to Willington Hospital and on 16.01.1991 he succumbed to the injuries. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording Jagjit Singh’s statement (Ex.PW-6/1).

During the course of investigation, the accused persons were apprehended and arrested. The crime weapon was recovered. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against them in the Court. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. In their 313 statements, the accused persons pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted Ram Kishan under Section 302 IPC & 325/34 IPC. Ramesh Kumar, Suresh and Krishan were held guilty under Section 325/34 IPC. Rajesh Kumar and Rajbir were acquitted of the charges. It is significant to note that the State did not challenge their acquittal.

2. Ram Kishan impugned the judgment in Crl.A. 371/2001 before this Court which was decided on 18.08.2009. Conviction of the appellant – Ram Kishan under Section 302 IPC was modified and altered to Section 304 part-I IPC while maintaining conviction under Section 325/34 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years under Section 304 part-I IPC. It is further relevant to note that during the pendency of the appeal Ramesh Kumar (the appellant) expired and proceedings against him were dropped as abated on 13.08.2013.

3. The appellants’ counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and the judgment is based upon conjectures and surmises. PW-1 (Amrik Singh), PW-4 (Nanak Singh), PW-5 (Braham Dutt) and PW-9 (Neer Singh) resiled from their statements and did not support the prosecution. PW-6 (Jagjit Singh) gave a vague statement that after sustaining injuries they fell down. He did not elaborate as to which of the appellants had inflicted which injury on his body. Recovery of lathi is doubtful. Jagjit Singh was conscious and oriented and was discharged on the same day. There are over-writings on the MLC (Ex.PW-8/A) and Radiologist was not examined to prove fracture on Jagjit’s body. The injuries were not ‘grievous’ in nature. Learned counsel adopted an alternative contention to release the appellants on probation, if found guilty. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor urged that there is no valid reasons to discard the PW-6 (Jagjit Singh)’s testimony who was injured in the incident.

4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have examined the record. Ram Kishan was convicted under Section 302 IPC on the same set of evidence. In the Crl.A. 371/2001 before this Court his conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to 304 part-I IPC. The said conviction was based primarily on the statement of PW-6 (Jagjit Singh) and it was accepted and believed by this Court. There are no sound reasons to disbelieve him as he sustained injuries in the incident and was taken to DDU Hospital from the spot. Number of injuries sustained by him confirms his presence at the spot. He had no ulterior motive to falsely rope in the accused and to let the real culprit go scot free for the injuries caused to him and his brother Jagdish. This Court in Crl.A. 371/2001 confirmed Ram Kishan’s conviction under Section 325/34 IPC. The First