Supreme Court: Credibility of injured witness becomes doubtful if injury caused to them is not proved

 The credibility of an injured eyewitness, as has been held by this Court is a tad higher than an eyewitness who has just seen the incident. The very fact that the witness suffered an injury in the same transaction adds to its credibility. On the other hand, when the prosecution fails to prove the very injuries projected as sustained in the same transaction, not only are we unable to concede a greater credibility than that available to a chance witness, but it also makes doubtful their very presence in the P.O. {Para 16}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 558 of 2021, 

Decided On: 28.04.2026

Sadek Ali and Ors. Vs. The State of Assam and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Author: K. Vinod Chandran, J.

 Citation: 2026 INSC 421,MANU/SC/0412/2026

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate prosecution evidence if evidence of complainant is contrary to evidence to injured witness?

 Evidence of Shivdas, the injured witness, when perused, reveals that at the time of incident, he was present with the Complainant and they were talking with reference to vacating the land upon which they had constructed "Chhappar". When the accused arrived, accused No. 1 was armed with iron bar and inflicted head injury to the Complainant by the same. He further stated that he alongwith Rajendra was given kick blows and fist blows and at the time of incident, number of persons gathered on the spot including Janardhan (P.W. 6), Dilip (P.W. 7), one Balu and others. It is material to point out that evidence of Rajendra (P.W. 1) is totally silent on the said aspect of presence of Dilip, Janardhan and Balu as deposed by this witness. {Para 5}

With reference to evidence of Shivdas on the point of assault, when his cross-examination is perused, his evidence appears to be contrary to the evidence of Rajendra, when he has admitted that prior to the incident, relations between himself, the Complainant on one side and the accused were not cordial as they were not on visiting terms, however, according to Rajendra (P.W. 1), the relations were good. Though according to Rajendra, on the day of incident, he was required to visit Nagar for some work and Shivdas was present in the hotel, Shivdas in total contrast to above evidence deposed that on the day of incident, both of them were running hotel upto 08:30 pm to 09:00 pm.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2002

Decided On: 22.04.2014

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shankar Nana Shende

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.N. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: 2014 ALLMR (CRI) 4008, 2015(2) MHLJ (CRI) 717, MANU/MH/2443/2014

Print Page

Whether injured person can be contradicted with his dying declaration treating it as his previous statement?

 The Executive Magistrate had purportedly recorded a statement of P.W.1 Jagannath in the form of a dying declaration. In view of Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the so-called dying declaration can be treated as a former statement made by P.W.1 and, therefore, the same can be used for contradicting the witness. When P.W.1 Jagannath was confronted with a portion of hisstatement at Ex.D-2, he accepted that the statement does not refer to the presence of accused nos.1, 3, 7, 8 and 9. {Para 7}

 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.162 of 2010

Ramcharan (Dead) & Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 

Author: Abhay S. Oka, J.

Dated: December 07, 2022.

Print Page

Whether the Court can disbelieve the evidence of the injured witness if there is a minor discrepancy in his evidence?

  We also do not find any substance in the argument of the

learned counsel that there are major contradictions in the deposition

of PWs18 and 19. The contradictions which are sought to be

projected are minor contradictions which cannot be the basis to

discard their evidence. The judgment of this Court in the case of

Mohar4 relied on by the learned counsel for the respondentState

supports the case of the prosecution. In the aforesaid judgment, this

Court has held that convincing evidence is required, to discredit an

injured witness. Para 11 of the judgment reads as under :

“11. The testimony of an injured witness has its own

efficacy and relevancy. The fact that the witness sustained

injuries on his body would show that he was present at the

place of occurrence and has seen the occurrence by

himself. Convincing evidence would be required to

discredit an injured witness. Similarly, every discrepancy

in the statement of a witness cannot be treated as fatal. A

discrepancy which does not affect the prosecution case

materially cannot create any infirmity. 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 216 OF 2015

Kalabhai Hamirbhai Kachhot Vs State of Gujarat 

Author: R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Dated:April 28, 2021.

Print Page

Supreme Court Judgment on appreciation of evidence of injured witness

Injured Witness

26. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness".

28. The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1243 of 2007

Decided On: 14.09.2010

 Abdul Sayeed  Vs.    State of Madhya Pradesh

Print Page

Whether court can convict accused with the aid of S 34 of IPC in place of S 149 of IPC even though no charge was framed U/S 34 of IPC?

Effect of Failure to frame proper charges

39. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Thakkidiram Reddy and Ors. MANU/SC/0490/1998 : (1998) 6 SCC 554, this Court considered the issue of failure to frame the proper charges. observing as under:

10. Sub-section (1) of Section 464 of the Code of criminal Procedure 1973 ('the Code', for short) expressly provides that no finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless in the opinion of the court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. Sub-section (2) of the said section lays down the procedure that the court of appeal, confirmation or revision has to follow in case it is of the opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned. The other section relevant for our purposes is Section 465 of the Code; and it lays down that no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the proceedings, unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned. It further provides, inter alia, that in determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.

The Court further held that in judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, the court must look to the substance of the matter and not to technicalities, and its main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself. In the said case this Court ultimately came to the conclusion that despite the defect in the framing of charges, as no prejudice had been caused to the accused, no interference was required.

40. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0038/1955 : AIR 1956 SC 116, considered the issue of failure to frame charges properly and the conviction of an accused for the offences for which he has not been charged and reached the conclusion as under:

86. ... In such a situation, the absence of a charge under one or other of the various heads of criminal liability for the offence cannot be said to be fatal by itself, and before a conviction for the substantive offence, without a charge, can be set aside, prejudice will have to be made out....

87. ... If it is so grave that prejudice will necessarily be implied or imported, it may be described as an illegality. If the seriousness of the omission is of a lesser degree, it will be an irregularity and prejudice by way of failure of justice will have to be established.

41. This Court in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/2515/2005 : (2005) 12 SCC 615, referred to and relied upon its earlier judgments in Willie (William) Slaney (supra) and Thakkidiram Reddy (supra), and held that unless there is a failure of justice and thereby the cause of the accused has been prejudiced, no interference is required if the conviction can be upheld on the evidence led against the accused. The Court should not interfere unless it is established that the accused was in any way prejudiced due to the errors and omissions in framing the charges against him.

A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Ramji Singh v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0632/2001 : (2001) 9 SCC 528; and Sanichar Sahni v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0888/2009 : (2009) 7 SCC 198.

42. There is no bar in law on conviction of the accused with the aid of Section 34 IPC in place of Section 149 IPC if there is evidence on record to show that such accused shared a common intention to commit the crime and no apparent injustice or prejudice is shown to have been caused by application of Section 34 IPC in place of Section 149 IPC. The absence of a charge under one or the other or the various heads of criminal liability for the offence cannot be said to be by itself prejudicial to the accused, and before a conviction for the substantive offence without a charge can be set aside, prejudice will have to be made out. Such a legal position is bound to be held good in view of the provisions of Sections 215, 216, 218, 221 and 464 of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973. (Vide: Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0031/1953 : AIR 1953 SC 364; Malhu Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0393/2002 : (2002) 5 SCC 724; Dhaneswar Mahakud and Ors. v. State of Orissa (2009) 9 SCC 307; and Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0640/2009 : AIR 2009 SC 2661).

43. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that unless the accused is able to establish that the defect(s) in framing the charge(s) has caused real prejudice to him; that he was not informed as to what was the real case against him; or that he could not defend himself properly, no interference is required on mere technicalities.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1243 of 2007

Decided On: 14.09.2010

 Abdul Sayeed  Vs.    State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0702/2010,(2010) 10 SCC 259

Print Page