The injured witness's testimony is accorded a special status in law, and the evidence of an injured witness is generally considered to be very reliable.

S.P. Garg, J.—

1. The appellants- Raj Pal (A-1) and Dev Pal (A-2) impugn judgment dated 12.05.2000 in Sessions Case No.490/1996 arising out of FIR No. 118/1995 PS Ambedkar Nagar by which they were held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 452/326/34 IPC. Vide order dated 17.05.2000 they were sentenced to undergo RI for two years with total fine Rs. 3,000/- each.

2. Allegations against the appellants were that on 22.02.1995 at about 08.30 P.M. they, in furtherance of common intention, committed criminal house trespass while armed with knife and hockey and attempted to murder Hari Kishan and his wife Bharti by causing injuries with knife and hockey. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. In their 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the accused pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held both of them guilty for committing offences under Sections 452/326/34 IPC. Being aggrieved, they have preferred the appeals.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error to base conviction on the testimonies of the interested witnesses. Glaring discrepancies/contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were ignored without valid reasons. PW-3 (Bharti) did not suffer any injury and was not medically examined. The prosecution witnesses have given inconsistent version as to for how many days Hari Kishan remained admitted in the hospital; how many knife blows were inflicted to him; how many assailants were present at the time of incident; and at which exact place the occurrence took place. No independent public witness was associated at any stage of investigation. The Investigating Officer did not lift blood from the spot. The knife allegedly recovered was a new vegetable knife. The FIR in question was registered as a counter-blast to the case lodged by A-1 against Hari Kishan vide FIR No.230/1995 under Section 325 IPC. Learned APP urged that PW-1 (Hari Kishan) is an injured victim. He has fully supported the prosecution and there are no reasons to discard his statement.

4. I have considered the submissions and have examined the record. Daily Diary (DD) No.15A (Ex.PW-9/A) was recorded on 22.02.1995 at 08.45 P.M. at PS Ambedkar Nagar on getting information that a quarrel was going on at 20/140, JJ Colony, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi. The investigation was assigned to SI Banwari Lal who with Const.Manohar Lal went to the spot. He came to know that PCR had already taken injured Pappu to Safdarjung Hospital. MLC (Ex.PW-8/A) was prepared at Safdarjung Hospital on 22.02.1995 at 09.25 P.M. ASI Rattan Chand admitted the victim to the hospital. Three incised wounds and one clear lacerated wound were found on the body of the victim. He was discharged on 25.02.1995. The injuries were ‘grievous’ caused by sharp weapon. It is not the case of the appellants that these were selfinflicted injuries. In their 313 Cr.P.C. statements the appellants claimed that Hari Kishan was beaten by his neighbours. The occurrence took place at 08.00 P.M. First Information Report was lodged at 11.50 P.M. after recording Bharti’s statement (Ex.PW-3/A). There was no delay in lodging First Information Report. Undoubtedly, the victim sustained injuries on his body. It is to be ascertained as to who was the author of the injuries.

5. Complainant Bharti, victim’s wife in her statement (Ex.PW- 3/A) made to the police soon after the incident gave detailed account as to how and under what circumstances both the accused armed with knife and hockey committed trespass and inflicted injuries to her husband. She attributed specific role to A-1 that he hit her husband with a hockey and A-2 stabbed him with a knife many times. Since the First Information Report lodged promptly, there was least possibility of fabrication of a false story after