Evidence of an Injured Witness Has Greater Evidentiary Value and Should Not Be Discarded Lightly: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of Rajesh @ Tinku, Ravinder @ Tunda, and Rusy @ Surender for murder and housebreaking by night under Sections 302/34 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court dismissed their appeals against conviction but modified the sentencing order, directing that their sentences should run concurrently instead of consecutively.

The bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma ruled, “The evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.” The Court observed that the prosecution had successfully proved the appellants’ involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, relying on the testimony of an injured eyewitness, forensic evidence, and the recovery of stolen articles.

On the night of July 24, 2012, the deceased, Shanti Devi, was stabbed to death inside her residence in Rohini, Delhi. Her son, Bhim (PW-1), witnessed the attack and sustained injuries while trying to resist the intruders. His statement led to the registration of an FIR. The accused were arrested the following day, and the police recovered bloodstained clothes, stolen ATM cards, and a purse belonging to the complainant’s family.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC for murder and Section 460 IPC for housebreaking by night, sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder and ten years' rigorous imprisonment for housebreaking, with the sentences directed to run consecutively. The appellants challenged their conviction and sentencing in the Delhi High Court.

The High Court considered several key issues raised by the appellants, including the reliability of the injured eyewitness’s testimony, their refusal to participate in a Test Identification Parade (TIP), the applicability of common intention under Section 34 IPC, and the credibility of the prosecution’s recoveries.

On the testimony of the injured eyewitness, the Court stated, “Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone.” The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., which held that “convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.”

Addressing the appellants’ refusal to undergo a TIP, the Court observed, “The appellants refused to participate in TIP despite being produced in muffled faces. An adverse inference must be drawn against them, as their refusal strengthens the prosecution’s case.” The Court noted that PW-1 and PW-9 had ample opportunity to observe the accused during the crime and identified them in court.

On the issue of common intention under Section 34 IPC, the Court ruled, “The common intention need not be the result of a premeditated plan and can be formed at the spur of the moment at the time of the commission of the offence.” The evidence showed that the accused had entered the house together and acted in furtherance of a shared intent to commit murder. “PW-1 categorically stated that he had grappled Rusy while his mother held Rajesh. When they were unable to escape, they exhorted Ravinder to stab the victim, proving their common intention.”

With regard to the conviction under Section 460 IPC, the Court held that housebreaking had been established. “The appellants entered the house of the complainant at 1:45 AM by opening the lock of the main door, thereby committing housebreaking by night with the intent to commit an offence.” The forensic examination report and the seizure memo supported this finding.

On the credibility of recoveries, the Court dismissed the defense’s claim that the stolen ATM cards and purse were planted. “The presence of blood group ‘A’ of the deceased on the clothes of Rajesh and Rusy further corroborates the case of the prosecution,” the Court noted.

The High Court upheld the trial court’s conviction, finding that the evidence presented by the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused. The Court ruled, “The manner in which the offence was committed clearly demonstrates the common intention on the part of all three accused.”

However, the Court modified the trial court’s sentencing order. The trial court had directed that the sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC should run consecutively after the ten-year sentence under Section 460 IPC. The High Court found this to be inappropriate and directed that the sentences should run concurrently instead.

Justice Amit Sharma, writing for the bench, observed, “Considering the socio-economic background of the appellants, who belong to poor families and were the sole breadwinners, it is appropriate that the sentences shall run concurrently.”

The Delhi High Court’s ruling upholds key legal principles, particularly regarding the evidentiary value of an injured eyewitness and the implications of refusing a TIP. The judgment ensures that justice is served while modifying the sentencing to reflect the appellants’ socio-economic conditions.

The Court concluded, “The present appeals qua the impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.04.2018 are dismissed and the same is upheld. Insofar as the impugned order on sentence dated 03.05.2018 is concerned, the same is modified to the extent that the sentences shall run concurrently.”

The decision reinforces the principles of criminal jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving common intention, identification of accused persons, and the assessment of eyewitness testimony.

Date of Decision: February 6, 2025