The testimony of an injured witness provides credible, high-value evidence due to the witness's proven presence at the crime scene. Procedural lapses during trial do not invalidate a conviction unless they demonstrably cause substantial prejudice to the accused.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 415(2) and 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 308 read with Section 34 - Attempt to commit culpable homicide - Conviction upheld - Burden of proof.

(B) Evidence - Testimony of injured witness - Stature of injured witness in law acts as an inbuilt guarantee of presence at the scene - Deposition of injured witness is to be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection based on major contradictions and discrepancies. (Paras 24, 25)

(C) Criminal Procedure - Non-compliance with mandatory provisions - Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Mere non-compliance does not vitiate proceedings unless it results in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused. (Para 7)

(D) Criminal Procedure - Recovery of weapon - Recovery of the weapon used is not a sine qua non for conviction if the rest of the prosecution case is proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 27)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for an attempt to commit culpable homicide after an incident where an individual was stabbed in the thigh following a confrontation over a financial dispute involving the appellant's associates. The appellant challenged the judgment, claiming misappreciation of evidence, procedural lapses during the trial, and lack of recovery of the weapon.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the testimony of the injured party was consistent, reliable, and corroborated by medical evidence. The defense's plea of procedural irregularity regarding the lack of a hearing for acquittal was dismissed as no substantial prejudice was demonstrated.

Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence provided was sufficient to uphold the conviction and whether alleged procedural lapses in the trial prejudiced the defense.

Ratio Decidendi: The testimony of an injured witness possesses special status as an inherent verification of their presence at the crime scene, necessitating reliance unless major contradictions are present. Procedural irregularities during a trial do not automatically invalidate the proceedings or a conviction provided no actual prejudice is caused to the accused.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history, framing of charge, and details of trial court conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. evaluation of trial evidence, witness testimony, and procedural compliance. (Para 7 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. summary of rival contentions regarding evidence and proof of guilt. (Para 11 , 12)
4. statutory requirements for section 308 ipc and evidentiary value of injured witnesses. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. final outcome and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. In this appeal filed under Section 415(2) and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, accused no. 1 (A1) in SC No. 1093/2018 on the file of the Special Judge, NDPS-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, assails the judgment dated 05.06.2025 and order on sentence dated 09.09.2025 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).

2. The prosecution case is that on 16.07.2018 at about 11.30 pm at Gautam Gali near House No. 513, Kabir Basti, Malka Ganj, Delhi, the accused persons four in number (A1 to A4), in furtherance of their common intention, abused PW2 and attempted to murder him by stabbing him with a knife on his right thigh with the intention and knowledge and under such circumstances that if the act caused death would be guilty of murder. Hence, as per the charge-sheet/final report, the accused persons were alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 read with 34 IPC.

3. On the basis of Ext.PW12/A FIS/FIR of CW1, given on 17.07.2018, Crime no. 208/2018, Subzi Mandi Police Station, that is, Ext.PW1/A FIR was registered by PW1, Assistant Sub Inspector. PW6, Sub Inspector (SI) was entrusted with the investigation of the case. On completion of the investigation into the crime, the charge-sheet/final report was filed alleging the commission of the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections.

4. When the accused persons were produced before the trial court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to them, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides, the trial court, vide order dated 17.01.2019, framed a Charge under Sections 307 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, which was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 12were examined, and Exts. PW1/A-D, PW3/A-B, PW5/A, PW6/A-P, PW7/A-D,PW8/A1-B, PW9/A, PW12/A-C, P1-P3, Mark PW3/1, Mark PW5/1, and Mark 11/1-24 were marked in support of the case.

6. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused persons denied all those circumstances and maintained their innocence. They claimed that they had been falsely implicated in the case. A1 submitted that he had no connection with the incident. One of the co-accused, namely, Kapil @ Tola (A3), had given money to PW2.When he, along with the other accused persons, went to the house of PW2 to demand repayment of the loan, a heated exchange of words took place. Upon PW2’s refusal to return the loan amount, they left the place quietly. A1 submitted that he never caused any injury to PW2 and that he has been falsely implicated at the instance of PW2, who had refused to repay the loan to A3 and was attempting to extort money from them. According to A1, he is unaware as to how PW2 sustained injuries.

7. After questioning the accused persons under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232 Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings, unless omission to comply wit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 966

The testimony of an injured witness provides credible, high-value evidence due to the witness's proven presence at the crime scene. Procedural lapses during trial do not invalidate a conviction unless they demonstrably cause substantial prejudice to the accused.

Cases Referred (3)