Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Hon’ble Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi of Patna High Court in the recent Judgement in the matter of Chandan Chaudhry v. the State of Bihar, that evidentiary value of an injured witness carries greater weight and the same may be relied upon unless there are major contradictions in his statement.
The appellant Chandan Chaudhry is convicted for the imprisonment of seven-year under charges of section 307, 326, 341 and 447 of Indian Penal Code. Charges related to attempt to murder, causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons, wrongful restraint and criminal trespass. Essentially, the appellant had been accused of intruding in the complainant house and having attempted to murder him and his family members, on account of persisting enmity between them.
The appellant assailed the order of conviction stating that the same has been passed mechanically, without properly appreciation of the facts. He contended that non-examination of the Investigating Officer by the prosecution had prejudiced him a statement as there were material exaggeration and contradiction in evidence, which went unaddressed in his absence.
Court refuses to interfere with the finding of the trial court merely because of non-examination of Investigation Officer. He further noted that the appellant could not controvert the testimony of the medical examiner who deposed with regard to the nature of injury of the complainant and his family member. Hence, stating that uncontroverted testimony of an injured witness held greater evidentiary value.
Reliance was placed on Mukesh and Another v. State of NCT and Ors[1], wherein the Apex Court reiterated in light of various precedents that, “the evidence of an injured witness is entitled to a greater weight and the testimony of such a witness is considered to be beyond reproach and reliable. Firm, content and the convincing ground are required to discard the evidence of an injured witness.”
“So far as the status of the injured witness is concerned, that has got priority and presence of the injury is indicative of the fact that the witness has sustained injury in a manner as deposed by him and his presence is further found affirmed at the place of occurrence and so, unless resolutely filliped, his version is to be accepted.”
[1] 2017 (3) PLJR 248 (SC)
86540
103860
630
114
59824