Non-Examination of Co-Injured or IO Not Fatal When Core Prosecution Evidence Is Intact: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Acquittal

“Even if the Investigating Officer or second injured was not examined, the consistent and corroborated testimony of the complainant stands as sufficient proof” —  Delhi High Court reversed the acquittal of two accused persons holding that non-examination of either the Investigating Officer (IO) or the co-injured person does not by itself weaken a criminal prosecution, so long as the core testimony of the injured witness is reliable and corroborated.

While setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, the High Court convicted the accused under Section 323/34 of the IPC for causing simple injuries in an incident arising from a neighbourhood altercation.

“Trial Court Erred in Discarding Entire Testimony for Minor Discrepancies”

In a detailed judgment delivered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, the Court found that the trial court had committed a serious error by disbelieving the complainant’s version solely due to peripheral contradictions, such as denial of preparation of the site plan and signatures on police documents.

Referring to Para 20, the Court observed:

"The complainant has been consistent about the manner in which the incident took place and his testimony was completely in consonance with his Complaint Ex.PW1/A."

The Court emphasized that such minor inconsistencies in the post-incident investigation phase cannot override the consistency of the core allegation of assault, especially when the witness is also the injured party, and his version is substantiated by medical records.

“Core Allegations Supported by Arrest Memos and MLCs”

The Court particularly noted that PW1 Ravinder Singh, the complainant, was not cross-examined by the defence, and his deposition about the attack on 29.09.2015 — involving the use of a broken glass bottle by neighbours Laxman Singh and Deepak — stood unimpeached.

His testimony was further corroborated by PW3 Constable Mohan Lal, who deposed about the arrest and presence of the accused at the scene of crime, and PW4 Dr. Rakesh Solanki and PW5 Dr. Navin Kumar, who proved the medical examination reports (MLCs) of both the complainant and his wife.

“The testimony of PW1 stands fully corroborated by the testimony of PW3 Constable Mohan... and further by the MLCs of the complainant and his wife,” observed the Court [Paras 21–23].

Thus, even in the absence of testimony from the IO or the co-injured wife, the Court found that the prosecution’s case remained intact, and the trial court’s refusal to proceed further in evidence was unwarranted.

The case arose out of an incident on September 29, 2015, when the complainant Ravinder Singh objected to cigarette smoke coming from the neighbouring house. A confrontation ensued, during which it was alleged that the accused — Laxman and his brother-in-law Deepak — assaulted the complainant and his wife, throwing a liquor bottle and using broken glass to injure them.

FIR No. 492/2015 was registered under Sections 452, 308, 323, and 34 IPC, but the charge was framed only under Section 324/34 IPC. However, the trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The State filed a leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC, which was allowed, and the appeal under Section 378(1) CrPC followed.

Rejecting the conclusions drawn by the trial court, Justice Bansal Krishna noted:

“The learned ASJ fell in error to discard the testimony of the complainant in toto, despite he being consistent about the main incident.” [Para 26]

Further, the Court criticized the erroneous assumption that the complainant had turned hostile merely because he disavowed the site plan or documents prepared during the investigation:

"These aspects were part of the investigation conducted subsequent to the incident, and cannot be termed as a circumstance to hold that the complainant was hostile." [Para 20]

Importantly, the Court held that the refusal to examine the second injured (the complainant’s wife) and the IO, based on an incorrect reading of PW1’s testimony, caused a miscarriage of justice, especially when there was otherwise sufficient corroborative evidence.

Conviction Under Section 323/34 IPC

While the complainant alleged that a broken liquor bottle had been used to inflict injuries, the prosecution failed to produce the weapon, and there was no clear proof of the kind of glass used. Hence, the High Court found that Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon) could not be attracted, and instead convicted the accused under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

“In the circumstances, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the injuries were caused by a dangerous weapon,” the Court held [Para 28].

The judgment marks a significant reaffirmation of established criminal jurisprudence — that the non-examination of certain witnesses or lapses in investigation cannot defeat a prosecution where the injured eyewitness account is reliable and supported by medical evidence.

Accordingly, the judgment of acquittal dated 11.09.2018 was set aside, and the respondents were convicted under Section 323/34 IPC, with the matter posted for arguments on sentence on November 6, 2025.

Date of Decision: October 28, 2025