Delhi High Court on Credibility of Injured Witness and Common Intention in Attempt to Murder Case.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court revisited principles governing the evidentiary value of injured witnesses and the application of Section 34 IPC while deciding the State’s appeal against the acquittal of four accused under Section 307 IPC. The Court reiterated that the testimony of an injured witness commands a high degree of reliability and cannot be discarded due to minor contradictions or investigative lapses. It clarified that common intention does not require identical acts but a shared purpose to commit the offence.

Background:

• The State appealed against the trial court’s acquittal of Ram Swaroop and others, accused of assaulting Raju (PW-2) with knives and lathis, allegedly intending to kill him.

• The trial court had found inconsistencies among witness statements and ruled that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• The prosecution argued that minor discrepancies were exaggerated and that the injured witness’s statement, naming the assailants, was wrongly disbelieved.

• The defence maintained that the investigation was defective, the identification doubtful, and witness versions contradictory regarding who inflicted injuries or took the victim to hospital.

Court’s Observations:

• The Bench held that an injured witness’s testimony has special evidentiary value since it comes from a person who suffered harm in the incident.

• Minor inconsistencies, normal lapses of memory, or defective investigation do not destroy credible evidence.

• The Court cited Abdul Sayed v. State of M.P., Naresh v. State of U.P., and Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reaffirming that appellate courts should not overturn acquittals merely for possible alternative views.

• It observed that intention under Section 307 IPC can be inferred from circumstances and nature of attack, not solely from the extent of injury.

• On Section 34 IPC, the Court emphasized that common intention implies a prearranged plan or meeting of minds, even if individual roles differ. Presence and facilitative conduct may suffice for liability.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 307, Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Attempt to murder.

• Section 34, Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

• Principles from Supreme Court precedents – Abdul Sayed, Naresh, R. Prakash, Chandrappa on credibility of injured witnesses and standards for appellate interference.

Citation: CRL.A. 969/2002

Case: State v. Ram Swaroop & Ors.

Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Justice Subramonium Prasad & Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav

Date of Decision: 31 October 2025

Criminal Appeal No.: 969 of 2002