Injured Eyewitness Testimony Carries 'Built-In Guarantee' Of Presence: Jharkhand High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Lack Of Independent Witnesses

"Evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly, " Jharkhand High Court, in a significant criminal law ruling, held that the testimony of an injured eyewitness is accorded a "special status" in law and carries a "built-in guarantee" of their presence at the crime scene.

A division bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary observed that such evidence cannot be easily discarded unless compelling reasons exist, even in the absence of independent witnesses or minor variances with medical reports.

The court made these observations while dismissing a batch of five criminal appeals filed by eight individuals convicted for abduction, murder, and attempt to murder under Sections 364/34, 302/34, and 307/34 of the IPC. The case involved the abduction of the informant and the deceased to a secluded check dam near Gaurburu forest, where they were shot at close range. While one victim died on the spot, the informant survived gunshot injuries to his temple and identified the appellants as the assailants.

The primary legal question before the court was whether a conviction could be sustained solely on the testimony of an injured eyewitness without independent corroboration. The court was also called upon to determine if investigation lapses, such as the non-recovery of the murder weapon and non-seizure of blood-stained earth, would vitiate the prosecution’s case.

Special Evidentiary Value Of Injured Witness

The court emphasized that Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not require a plurality of witnesses to prove a fact. It noted that the quality of evidence matters more than the quantity, and the testimony of an injured witness is generally considered very reliable as they are unlikely to spare the actual assailant to falsely implicate others.

The bench observed that the presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. The judges noted that the informant’s gunshot injuries on his temple (kanpatti) served as "stamped" proof of his presence at the scene.

"The testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence."

Absence Of Independent Witnesses Not Fatal

Addressing the defense's contention that no independent villagers were examined, the court noted that the incident occurred in a secluded forest area at night. The bench held that the credibility of the prosecution case rests upon the reliability of the witnesses examined, not merely the presence or absence of independent witnesses.

The court further held that when the testimonies of the witnesses examined are found to be trustworthy, the prosecution case cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of the absence of independent witnesses. The bench referred to the secluded nature of the check dam and Gaurburu hillock to explain why only the victims and the accused were present.

"Where there is clinching evidence of eyewitnesses, mere non-examination of some of the witnesses/independent witnesses... would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution."

Primacy Of Ocular Evidence Over Medical Variance

The appellants argued that while the informant claimed three bullets were fired at the deceased, the post-mortem report recorded only two firearm injuries. The court rejected this as a ground for acquittal, reiterating that ocular testimony prevails over medical opinion unless the latter completely rules out the former.

The bench noted that the variance in the number of shots does not demolish the core prosecution story since the cause of death—firearm injuries—was established by both the witness and the doctor. The court emphasized that a witness cannot be expected to provide a graphic or perfectly calculated account of a traumatic shooting incident.

"Ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence... unless the medical evidence completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved."

Investigation Lacunae Do Not Vitiate Cogent Testimony

The defense highlighted that the Investigating Officer failed to prepare a site plan, did not seize blood-stained earth, and failed to recover the weapon of offence. The Court held that a perfunctory investigation does not corrode the evidentiary value of a credible eyewitness.

The judges observed that while the non-sending of blood-stained material for FSL examination may be a deficiency, it does not vitiate the prosecution version if supported by cogent testimony. The bench relied on the recovery of the deceased's body from the pond and the surgical removal of a bullet from the informant to validate the investigation's core findings.

"Merely because the perfunctory investigation, the prosecution case will not vitiate if the prosecution version is being supported by the credible testimony of the eyewitness."

Formation Of Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC

The court addressed the joint liability of all eight appellants, noting that they had collectively restrained the victims and transported them to the forest on motorcycles. The bench held that Section 34 of the IPC fastens joint liability on each co-participant based on the principle of a shared community of purpose.

The bench explained that common intention does not necessarily require a pre-arranged plan hatched over a long period. It noted that common intention can be formed even moments before the criminal act and must be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the occurrence.

"Common intention can be formed just a minute before the actual act happens... Section 34 or the principle of common intention is invoked to implicate and fasten joint liability on other co-participants."

In conclusion, the High Court found the testimony of the injured informant to be "unimpeachable" and "consistent." The bench upheld the Trial Court's judgment of conviction and life imprisonment for all appellants. The court noted that the prosecution successfully proved the abduction, murder, and attempt to murder as a concerted action driven by the appellants' suspicion regarding "black magic" or "pooja" performed by the informant.

The court dismissed all five criminal appeals and cancelled the bail bonds of the appellants who were out on suspended sentences. The bench directed the appellants to surrender before the Trial Court immediately to serve out their sentences, failing which the Trial Court must take steps to secure their custody.

Date of Decision: 13 May 2026