When Medical Evidence Contradicts Ocular Version, Testimony of Sole Injured Witness Cannot Stand Alone: Allahabad High Court Upholds Acquittal

“Sole Testimony With Contradictions Cannot Convict ”— Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising Dr. Ajay Kumar-II and Rajeev Misra, JJ., dismissed a Criminal Misc. Application challenging the acquittal of three accused persons in a complaint case involving serious charges under Sections 307, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC.

The Court upheld the trial court’s verdict acquitting the accused, ruling that there was no perversity or manifest error in the lower court’s judgment, which had been delivered after a careful appreciation of the evidence, particularly noting material contradictions in the complainant’s testimony, an unexplained delay of 16 days in lodging the complaint, and the concealment of crucial facts such as counter injuries on the accused and the existence of parallel proceedings under Sections 107/116 CrPC.

“If Injuries Are Simple, Testimony Is Contradictory, and Delay is Unexplained—Conviction Cannot Be Founded on Injured Witness Alone”

The complainant, Sanjay Kumar, had alleged that on 28 May 2018, while on his way to work, he was attacked by the accused persons near their house. According to him, one of the accused attempted to stab him in the chest, but he managed to save himself by using his left hand, thereby sustaining severe injuries to his fingers. The complaint further alleged that witnesses were present, but none were examined during trial. Despite the serious nature of the allegations, the trial court acquitted the accused on 15 September 2025, prompting the present appeal.

The High Court affirmed that no interference was warranted with the acquittal under Section 419 BNSS, observing:

“The testimony of a sole injured witness embedded with material contradictions, infirmities and suppression cannot safely be the foundation of conviction.

“The Story Narrated Does Not Match the Wounds Suffered”—Court Finds Ocular and Medical Evidence Irreconcilable

The bench minutely examined the medical report and the complainant’s version, finding that:

“The complainant claimed that three fingers were cut due to a single knife blow. However, the medical report recorded three separate injuries—two lacerated wounds and one incised wound—on different fingers, along with contusions on chest and head, and abdominal pain. There was no supplementary report to clarify the gravity of injuries.”

Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, delivering the verdict, held that: “Lacerated wounds are not consistent with a sharp knife attack, especially where there is no fall on a hard surface. The possibility of such wounds from blunt objects like stones or bricks is ruled out, as it is not part of the prosecution case.”

“Injury Alone Is Not Enough—There Must Be Truth in Testimony”

The Court was categorical in clarifying that an injured witness is not immune from scrutiny. Relying on precedent from Thaman Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, the Court reiterated that:

“An injury may prove presence at the scene but not the truthfulness of the narrative. Where the account is inconsistent with injuries, the credibility suffers.”

In this case, the testimony of the complainant was termed as “neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable”, thus necessitating corroboration, which was absent.

“Delay Destroys Credibility—16 Days Without Explanation is Fatal”

One of the most significant factors contributing to the failure of the prosecution’s case was the inordinate delay in initiating criminal proceedings. Although the incident occurred on 28 May 2018, the complaint was filed only on 12 June 2018, a delay of 16 days, with no plausible explanation.

The Court cited numerous precedents including Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, Mehraj Singh v. State of U.P., and the latest ruling in Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh, to reinforce that:

“Unexplained delay in lodging an FIR or complaint creates doubt and suspicion about the prosecution story. It also offers time to fabricate facts.”

The complainant’s reliance on a purported application sent to the SSP on 01.06.2018 was found unproven, and even if accepted, would still leave 11 days of unexplained silence, which the Court found unacceptable.

“Suppression of Facts Is as Damning as Falsehood”—Court Censures Omission of Counter-Injuries and Police Action

The Court severely criticized the complainant’s failure to disclose that the accused had also sustained injuries and that police action under Sections 107/116 CrPC had been initiated against both sides, stating:

“The complainant was medically examined; so was accused Atul. Yet the complainant remained completely silent on this aspect in his examination-in-chief. This concealment undermines the credibility of the prosecution.”

It further noted that:

“The police had arrived at the spot on being called by the accused, not the complainant. This fact alone dents the narrative of the prosecution.”

“Appellate Power Against Acquittal Exists, But Is Not Unfettered”—No Grounds Made Out Under Section 419 BNSS

The High Court observed that its power to interfere with an acquittal under Section 419 BNSS must be exercised with caution and only when the trial court’s findings are manifestly perverse or contrary to record, holding:

“If two plausible views exist, one leading to conviction and the other to acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere. The trial court’s view here is consistent with law and evidence.”

Citing Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka and Gamini Bala Koteshwara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court stressed that the appellate court must not substitute its own opinion in the absence of perversity.

“No Independent Witness Produced, Despite Being Named”—Court Questions Evidentiary Gap

The complainant named multiple eyewitnesses in the complaint—Jagvir, Anil Kumar, Krishna Kumar and Vipin Kumar—but none were produced at trial. Even the witnesses examined during the inquiry under Section 202 CrPC were later discharged.

The Court found this particularly telling:

“Despite having several named eyewitnesses, no independent corroboration was brought during trial. This selective presentation of evidence weakens the prosecution.”

“Neither the Weight of Evidence Nor the Law Supports Interference”—Appeal Dismissed

After evaluating the testimonies, injury reports, procedural gaps, and conduct of parties, the High Court concluded:

“There is no perversity, illegality or omission in the trial court's judgment that would warrant interference. The conclusion drawn by the lower court is based on sound legal reasoning and due evaluation of facts.”

Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. Appeal under Section 419 BNSS was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused persons was affirmed.

Date of Decision: 17 November 2025