Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case

“Not Much Significance Could Be Attached to Resiling — Yet Surrounding Circumstances Cannot Be Ignored”, In a significant judgment reaffirming the principles governing appeals against acquittal and the cautious reliance on partially hostile testimony, the Delhi High Court dismissed the State’s appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent in a case under Sections 326, 341 and 506 IPC.

Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that although law permits reliance on examination-in-chief even where a witness resiles later, such testimony must withstand scrutiny in light of surrounding circumstances. Finding no perversity in the reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), the Court refused to interfere with the acquittal.

Conviction Based on Examination-in-Chief, Acquittal in Appeal

The prosecution case stemmed from an incident dated 23 January 1998, where the complainant Bansi alleged that the respondent, along with two associates, assaulted him with a sharp-edged weapon, causing grievous injuries to his arms and ear, and threatened him with dire consequences.

The learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) convicted the respondent primarily on the strength of the complainant’s examination-in-chief, where he identified the accused and narrated the assault. The complainant could not initially be cross-examined. However, upon recall under Section 311 Cr.P.C. after nine years, he denied the identity of the accused, stating that “it was night and dark and there was a wedding taking place in the vicinity.”

The MM disregarded the subsequent resiling and convicted the accused, relying on precedents permitting conviction based on examination-in-chief even if the witness later turns hostile.

On appeal, the learned ASJ extended benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondent. The State challenged this acquittal before the High Court under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C.

“Sole Testimony Requires Careful Scrutiny When Corroboration Fails”

The High Court acknowledged the settled legal principle that examination-in-chief may be relied upon even if the witness turns hostile in cross-examination. However, Justice Krishna observed that such reliance must be tested against the overall evidentiary matrix.

The Court noted that though the complainant supported the prosecution initially, he later denied identifying the accused. More importantly, two independent eye-witnesses, PW5 and PW9, “completely failed to support the case of the Prosecution.”

The Court observed: “Where a Witness who is called for cross-examination after a gap of time fails to support the Prosecution case in Cross-Examination, then the examination-in-chief cannot be overlooked… However, the sole Testimony of the Complainant… made it imperative to also consider the surrounding circumstances.”

Out of six public witnesses cited, only two independent eye-witnesses were examined, and both turned hostile. The remaining witnesses were not examined at all. This lack of corroboration created a reasonable doubt.

“In Hostile Witness Cases, Examination of I.O. Becomes Crucial”

Another critical evidentiary gap was the non-examination of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) who conducted substantial investigation. Though the I.O. had passed away, the Court held that in circumstances where eye-witnesses turned hostile, the I.O.’s testimony was vital to explain contradictions and prove proper recording of statements.

The High Court observed that there was “no explanation if the statements of the two Eye Witnesses who failed to support the Prosecution case, were indeed recorded correctly and if they were actually the eye witnesses of the incident.”

The absence of such clarificatory evidence further weakened the prosecution case.

“Recovery from Open Bushes Without Forensic Link Not Wholly Reliable”

The prosecution relied on recovery of a Ustra allegedly at the instance of the accused from bushes near Rithala Bus Stand.

The Court noted that the weapon was recovered from “an open area accessible to all” and was not sent to FSL for forensic examination. No expert opinion was obtained to establish whether the weapon could have caused the injuries reflected in the MLC.

In the absence of forensic corroboration, the recovery was not considered “absolutely reliable” and could not conclusively link the accused to the offence.

Benefit of Doubt in Criminal Jurisprudence

The Court did not dispute that the complainant suffered grievous injuries, as established by the MLC. However, grievous injury alone is insufficient unless the identity and role of the accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Justice Krishna held that the ASJ had “rightly given the benefit of doubt to the Respondent” and that the findings were “cogent and well explained.”

Finding no perversity or misappreciation of evidence, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

This judgment reiterates that while examination-in-chief may, in law, form the basis of conviction even if a witness later resiles, courts must exercise caution where corroboration is absent and evidentiary gaps persist.

Hostile eye-witnesses, non-examination of the Investigating Officer, and recovery of weapon from an open and accessible location without forensic linkage cumulatively created reasonable doubt. In criminal jurisprudence, such doubt must enure to the benefit of the accused.

The Delhi High Court thus reaffirmed the principle that appellate interference in an acquittal is warranted only where findings are perverse or manifestly illegal — not where two views are possible.

Date of Decision: 13 February 2026