Testimony of Injured Eyewitness Has Greater Evidentiary Value; Can't Be Discarded for Minor Omissions: Supreme Court

"An injured eyewitness enjoys a presumption of truth... His presence at the crime scene is unimpeachable" – Supreme Court of India upheld the life sentence awarded to multiple appellants involved in a double murder resulting from a violent land boundary dispute. Central to the Court’s ruling was its firm affirmation that injured eyewitness testimony, especially when corroborated by medical evidence, carries special evidentiary weight and cannot be brushed aside on the basis of trivial discrepancies.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed the criminal appeals challenging the concurrent convictions recorded by the Sessions Court and the High Court under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the presence of PW-2 (Bangal Singh), who was grievously injured during the incident, was established beyond doubt, and his consistent narration of events was corroborated by two other eyewitnesses and the post-mortem findings.

“The testimony of an injured eyewitness is a stamped witness... His presence at the scene cannot be doubted,” observed the Court while reaffirming the long-standing judicial principle that ocular testimony of an injured witness has heightened credibility in law.

Eyewitness Testimony Corroborated by Medical Evidence and Consistent Narrative

The incident occurred on May 19, 1988, in a village in the then State of Uttar Pradesh (now Uttarakhand), where a long-standing boundary dispute between two related factions turned violent. A group of seven men, armed with lathis and sharp-edged spades (phawaras), launched a fatal attack on members of the rival group, resulting in the death of Dile Ram and Braham Singh, and serious injuries to PW-2, Bangal Singh.

The Court emphasized that PW-2, apart from suffering multiple injuries himself, specifically described the attack, identified the assailants, and his version was consistently supported by PW-3 and PW-4, both of whom were independent eyewitnesses present in the vicinity.

“There is nothing palpable or glaring in the evidence of the eyewitnesses on the basis of which we can take the view that they are not true or reliable,” the Bench noted.

Relying on precedent from Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. (2010), the Court reiterated that:

“A witness who has sustained injuries in the same occurrence as the deceased, and at the same time and place, has his presence stamped on the case. Such testimony deserves weight and credence unless demolished by major contradictions.”

The injuries sustained by PW-2, as recorded by Dr. Harish Chandra Dua (PW-7), matched the sequence of events and were also consistent with the kind of weapons used by the assailants—lathis and spades—which further strengthened the prosecution's case.

Minor Discrepancies Do Not Affect Core Truth of Testimony

The appellants had challenged the credibility of the eyewitnesses, arguing discrepancies in their statements. The Court firmly rejected this line of defence, holding that minor omissions or inconsistencies are natural and do not render the entire testimony unreliable, especially in cases of traumatic and sudden events.

Citing Shahaja alias Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2023), the Court observed:

“Few contradictions in the form of omissions here or there is not sufficient to discard the entire evidence of the eyewitnesses.”

Further, the defence’s argument that the complainant side suppressed the genesis of the case and falsely implicated the appellants was dismissed on the ground that the prosecution’s narrative stood unshaken, and the accused failed to elicit any significant contradiction in cross-examination.

Presence of Motive Adds Strength, But Not Required When Direct Evidence Exists

Though the appellants attempted to portray the incident as a “free fight” or a spontaneous clash without motive, the Court found otherwise. It accepted the prosecution’s case that a demolished ridge (mendh) and a pending land dispute served as the immediate provocation, but stressed that presence of motive is not a sine qua non when there is direct and reliable evidence.

“Motive is secondary where credible eyewitness testimony is available. But in the present case, even motive is established through prior enmity due to the land boundary dispute,” the Court said, citing Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2011).

Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Justified – Exception 4 to Section 300 Not Applicable

The appellants’ plea that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC—i.e., a sudden fight or absence of premeditation—was categorically rejected. The Court held that the nature of injuries, choice of weapons, and targeting of vital parts like the skull and head established clear intention to kill.

“The death of both victims was caused by deep, clean incised wounds to the skull— inflicted with sharp weapons. This was not a spontaneous quarrel, but a planned and deadly assault,” observed the Court.

Thus, the offence remained one of murder under Section 302 IPC, and could not be reduced to culpable homicide under Section 304.

Conviction Affirmed, Appeal Dismissed, Appellants to Surrender

Having found no perversity or misreading of evidence in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court, the Supreme Court refused to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution, reaffirming that such interference is reserved only for exceptional cases involving grave injustice or legal perversity.

“We find no merit in the appeals. The appellants shall surrender forthwith. Bail bonds stand cancelled. However, they are free to seek remission as per applicable law and policy,” the Court concluded.

Date of Decision: October 28, 2025