Section 302/307 IPC | Injured Witness Testimony Overrides Minor Discrepancies for Conviction : Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court's judgment in Shakir Ali v. State reaffirms the legal principle that the testimony of an injured witness carries significant evidentiary weight, even if minor discrepancies exist. The Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) while acquitting him under Section 394 IPC due to insufficient proof of robbery. The judgment underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in evaluating witness credibility, particularly in cases involving violent crimes.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Shakir Ali, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bahraich, in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1990 for offences under Sections 302, 394, and 307 IPC. The prosecution alleged that on 16.09.1989, at around 5:00 AM, the appellant, along with co-accused Mohd. Sharif and Deshraj, attempted to snatch a nose-ring from the complainant's wife, Shanti Devi. When she resisted, the appellant stabbed her, leading to her death, and subsequently attacked their daughter, Gayatri Devi (PW2), inflicting severe injuries.

Key Facts

• Incident Date: 16.09.1989 at approximately 5:00 AM.
• Victims: Shanti Devi (deceased) and Gayatri Devi (PW2, injured).
• Alleged Offence: Attempted robbery (snatching of nose-ring), murder (Section 302 IPC), and attempted murder (Section 307 IPC).
• Weapons: Appellant Shakir Ali used a knife; co-accused Mohd. Sharif and Deshraj carried lathis.
• Witnesses:
  • PW1 (Maharaj Deen): Complainant, husband of the deceased, and father of PW2.
  • PW2 (Gayatri Devi): Injured witness, daughter of the deceased.
  • PW3 (Hardwar): Independent eyewitness.
• Injuries:
  • PW2: Nine injuries, including incised wounds (Exhibit Ka.2).
  • Deceased: Seven injuries, including stab wounds (Exhibit Ka.5).
• Recovery: Blood-stained knife and clothes recovered at the appellant's instance (Exhibit Ka.6).

Procedural History

• 16.09.1989: Incident occurred; FIR registered at 8:35 AM under Sections 302/394/307 IPC (Exhibit Ka.3).
• 17.09.1989: Post-mortem of Shanti Devi conducted (Exhibit Ka.5).
• 21.09.1989: Appellant Shakir Ali and co-accused Mohd. Sharif arrested; knife and blood-stained clothes recovered (Exhibit Ka.6).
• Investigation: Conducted by PW8 (SHO Yogendra Singh); chargesheet filed under Sections 302, 394, and 307 IPC.
• Trial:
  • Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1990: Charges framed under Sections 302/34, 307/34, and 394 IPC.
  • Prosecution Witnesses: Eight witnesses examined.
  • 31.03.1993: Trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 394, and 307 IPC and acquitted co-accused Mohd. Sharif and Deshraj.
• Appeal: Filed before the Allahabad High Court (Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 1993).

The Parties' Positions

For the Appellant

• Argued that the trial court erred in relying on the testimonies of PW1, PW2, and PW3, citing discrepancies in PW2's statements.
• Contended that PW2's testimony before the court differed from her statement recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) during treatment.
• Argued that PW1's presence at the scene was doubtful, as PW3 claimed to have informed PW1 about the incident.
• Challenged the motive (snatching of nose-ring), as no injury was found on the deceased's nose, and the nose-ring was never recovered.
• Emphasized that the co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence, questioning the appellant's sole conviction.

For the Respondent (State)

• Defended the trial court's judgment, arguing that the prosecution's evidence was reliable and consistent.
• Highlighted that PW2 was an injured witness, and her testimony carried significant weight.
• Contended that minor discrepancies in witness statements do not discredit their core testimony.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought acquittal from all charges, arguing that the prosecution's case was weak and inconsistent. The State sought dismissal of the appeal and upholding of the trial court's conviction.

The Legal Issue

The central legal questions before the Court were:

1. Whether the trial court erred in relying on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly PW2 (injured witness), despite minor discrepancies?
2. Whether the appellant's sole conviction was sustainable when the co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence?
3. Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 394 IPC was justified in the absence of conclusive proof of robbery?

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

• Discrepancies in PW2's Testimony: PW2's statement before the SDM differed from her deposition in court. Before the SDM, she alleged that all three accused attacked her mother with knives, while in court, she stated that only Shakir Ali stabbed them, and the other two accused were merely present with lathis.
• Lack of Motive: The prosecution failed to establish a reasonable motive for the attack, as the alleged snatching of a nose-ring was not corroborated by injuries on the deceased's nose or recovery of the nose-ring.
• Doubtful Presence of PW1: PW1's presence at the scene was questioned, as PW3 stated that he informed PW1 about the incident after it occurred.
• Acquittal of Co-Accused: The co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence, raising doubts about the appellant's sole conviction.

For the Respondent (State)

• Injured Witness Testimony: PW2's testimony as an injured witness was inherently reliable, as she had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant.
• Corroborative Evidence: The testimonies of PW1, PW3, and PW7 (complaint writer) corroborated PW2's version.
• Recovery of Weapon: The blood-stained knife recovered at the appellant's instance linked him to the crime.
• Medical Evidence: The injury reports (Exhibits Ka.2 and Ka.5) supported the prosecution's version of events.

The Court's Analysis

The Court conducted a detailed analysis of the evidence, focusing on the following key aspects:

Reliability of Injured Witness Testimony

The Court relied on judicial precedents to emphasize the evidentiary value of an injured witness's testimony:

• In Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P.; (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Supreme Court held that the testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable, as they are unlikely to spare their actual assailants.
• In Brahm Swaroop & Anr v. State of U.P.; (2011) 6 SCC 288, the Court observed that relationship to the victim does not automatically discredit a witness, unless there is evidence of false implication.
• The Court noted that PW2's injuries (Exhibit Ka.2) were severe and fresh, corroborating her presence at the scene. While she deviated slightly in her statement before the SDM, her core testimony regarding the appellant's involvement remained consistent.

Minor Discrepancies in Testimony

The Court addressed the discrepancies in PW2's statements and held:

• Minor contradictions in witness testimonies do not discredit the entire narrative if the core facts remain intact (Baban Shankar Daphal & Others v. State of Maharashtra; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 137).
• PW2's deviation regarding the role of the co-accused was not material, as her testimony consistently implicated the appellant (Birbal Nath v. State of Rajasthan; (2024) 15 SCC 190).
• The Court emphasized that witnesses in traumatic situations (e.g., witnessing a murder) cannot be expected to recall every detail accurately.

Presence of Witnesses at the Scene

The Court examined the presence of PW1 and PW3 at the scene:

• PW1's presence was corroborated by PW2 and PW3, who stated that he arrived after hearing the hue and cry.
• PW3's testimony was independent and reliable, as he had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant.
• The FIR was lodged promptly (at 8:35 AM), leaving no scope for manipulation.

Identification of the Accused

The Court addressed the identification of the appellant:

• The incident occurred at 5:00 AM, and the appellant was known to the witnesses, ruling out mistaken identity.
• The recovery of the blood-stained knife at the appellant's instance further corroborated his involvement.

Conviction Under Section 394 IPC

The Court acquitted the appellant under Section 394 IPC (robbery) due to:

• Lack of Proof of Robbery: The prosecution failed to establish the snatching of the nose-ring beyond reasonable doubt, as no injury was found on the deceased's nose, and the nose-ring was never recovered.
• Motive Not Conclusive: While the prosecution alleged robbery as the motive, the absence of conclusive proof led the Court to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant.

Sole Conviction of the Appellant

The Court upheld the appellant's sole conviction despite the acquittal of co-accused:

• The evidence against the appellant (eyewitness testimony, recovery of weapon, medical evidence) was strong and consistent.
• The acquittal of co-accused was based on insufficient evidence regarding their active participation, not the absence of the crime itself (Darya Singh v. State of Punjab; 1963 SCC OnLine SC 123).

"The possibility of improvement by the witnesses cannot be conclusively ruled out in this regard. We find force in the argument of the appellant that the version of nose ring snatching may be an improvement by the prosecution. In any case, the fact of snatching of nose ring by the appellant accused is not established beyond reasonable doubt and thus, it would not be safe to convict the accused under Section 394 of IPC for the offence of robbery."

The Verdict

The Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the trial court's judgment as follows:

1. Acquitted the appellant under Section 394 IPC, extending the benefit of doubt due to lack of conclusive proof of robbery.
2. Upheld the conviction and sentence under:
   • Section 302 IPC (murder): Rigorous imprisonment for life.
   • Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder): Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.
3. Sentences to run concurrently.
4. Cancellation of Bail: The appellant, who was on bail, was directed to surrender within two weeks before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, failing which he would be arrested to serve the sentence.
5. Costs and Compliance: The trial court was directed to remit the original record within one week for compliance.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Injured Witness Testimony Prevails Over Minor Discrepancies

• Practitioners must note that the testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable, even if minor discrepancies exist.
• Minor contradictions (e.g., variations in sequence of events or role of co-accused) do not discredit the witness if the core facts remain consistent.
• Courts will scrutinize discrepancies but will not discard testimony unless the entire narrative is unreliable.

Recovery of Weapon and Forensic Evidence Is Crucial

• The recovery of a weapon (e.g., knife) at the accused's instance and forensic evidence (e.g., human blood on the weapon) strengthens the prosecution's case.
• Medical evidence (injury reports, post-mortem reports) corroborates witness testimonies and helps establish the nature of the crime.

Motive Alone Is Not Conclusive for Conviction

• Failure to establish a motive does not automatically lead to acquittal if other evidence (eyewitness testimony, recovery, medical evidence) proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Motive is an internal aspect and may not always be ferreted out by investigation, but its absence does not weaken an otherwise strong prosecution case.

Sole Conviction Sustainable Despite Acquittal of Co-Accused

• Acquittal of co-accused does not automatically entitle the appellant to acquittal if the evidence against him is strong and consistent.
• Courts will examine each accused's role individually and not apply a blanket acquittal based on the same evidence.
• Prosecution must ensure that evidence against each accused is distinct and conclusive to avoid acquittals on technical grounds.