Injured Victim Is the Best Witness: Allahabad High Court Upholds Attempt To Murder Convictions Based On Sole Testimony Of Survivor

“In cases of assault, the injured person is the best witness”, ruled the Allahabad High Court while partly allowing an appeal against conviction under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder, distinguishing between the active firearm assault by one accused and a lesser role with a danda by the other.

Justice Abdul Shahid delivered the judgment arising from the judgment of conviction delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Unnao in Sessions Trial Nos. 197 of 1999 and 476 of 2000. The Court upheld the conviction of both accused under Section 307 IPC, but modified the sentence of one appellant (Vishunath) in light of differential culpability and nature of injuries inflicted.

The case revolved around a violent incident where the injured complainant, Kallu, sustained a firearm injury to the lower abdomen, while also being struck with a danda (wooden stick) on his hand. While appellant Arjun Pasi was accused of firing a shot with a country-made pistol (katta), Vishunath was said to have attacked with a danda.

“Distinction Must Be Drawn Between Intention To Kill And Mere Participation” – Sentence Reduced For Co-Accused Who Caused Non-Vital Injury With Stick

Justice Shahid carefully examined the role of each accused, noting that both had been convicted identically under Section 307 IPC for three years’ rigorous imprisonment, despite the clear difference in nature of their acts.

The Court found:

“The injury caused by appellant Vishunath was on the non-vital part, i.e., the hand, and was not caused with any deadly weapon. It was not sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death.”

On the contrary, the Court held that Arjun Pasi’s act of firing a katta into the lower abdomen/pelvic region constituted an offence squarely falling under Section 307 IPC, as it was a life-endangering injury on a vital part.

Quoting from the judgment:

“The role of appellant No.1 (Vishunath) is simply causing injury by danda on a non-vital part. The injury caused by appellant No.2 (Arjun Pasi) is on the lower abdomen/pelvis — a vital region — and is potentially fatal.”

The Court therefore upheld the conviction of both under Section 307 IPC but reduced Vishunath’s sentence to 8 months rigorous imprisonment, maintaining the fine of ₹2,000. In case of default, the sentence would be one month simple imprisonment. The sentence of Arjun Pasi remained at 3 years’ RI.

“Hostile Witnesses Cannot Undermine the Sole Credible Testimony of the Injured” – Court Reaffirms Evidentiary Primacy of Survivor’s Account

Although several prosecution witnesses — including the injured’s father (PW-2) and other alleged eyewitnesses (PW-3, PW-6, PW-7) — turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution, the High Court placed strong reliance on the injured’s own statement, calling him the most reliable source of truth.

“In cases of personal assault, the testimony of the injured carries special weight. The injured is the best witness,” the Court emphasized.

The testimony of Kallu (PW-1) was consistent and specific. He categorically stated:

“There was danda in the hand of Vishunath, and Arjun had fired on me.”

This clear attribution of individual roles stood unshaken in cross-examination, and the medical evidence corroborated his version. The injuries were:

• A traumatic swelling on the left arm — consistent with a danda blow

• A firearm wound of entry in the lower abdomen/pelvic area — a region medically recognized as vital

Even though other witnesses failed to corroborate Kallu’s statement — and some outright denied the incident — the Court held that such hostility was not fatal to the prosecution case where the injured witness’s account remains credible and supported by medical evidence.

“Same Conviction Does Not Justify Same Sentence In All Cases” – Court Applies Sentencing Discretion Based On Degree Of Participation

While confirming the conviction under Section 307 IPC, the High Court invoked the principle of proportionality in sentencing. Justice Abdul Shahid observed that:

“Though both were convicted under the same section, the extent of participation and intention behind the assault were clearly different. Sentencing must reflect that distinction.”

The act of shooting into a vital organ with a firearm showed an unequivocal intent to cause death, whereas the single danda blow to a non-vital area lacked such fatal implication. The Court rejected the idea of equal punishment for unequal acts, noting:

“There is a clear line of demarcation between an act which is likely to cause death and one which is not.”

This nuanced sentencing approach underscores the jurisprudential principle that mens rea (intention) and actus reus (action) must both be considered in calibrating punishment under criminal law.

Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified For One Accused

In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court held that both Vishunath and Arjun Pasi were rightly convicted under Section 307 IPC, but due to the lesser role and nature of injury caused by Vishunath, his sentence deserved modification. The appeal was thus partly allowed.

Justice Abdul Shahid concluded: “The injured has consistently described the individual acts of both appellants. His version is corroborated by medical findings. However, the gravity of the two roles is not the same. The sentence must reflect that.”

Date of Decision: 14 November 2025