Testimony of Injured Witness Carries Special Weight in Criminal Trials: Delhi HC

In a significant reaffirmation of criminal jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of an individual for attempted culpable homicide, emphasizing that the testimony of an injured witness is inherently reliable due to their guaranteed presence at the crime scene.

Presided over by Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, the court dismissed an appeal against a five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence, observing that minor discrepancies cannot overshadow the weight of evidence provided by a victim who survived a violent assault. The bench noted that unless strong grounds for rejection exist, such depositions remain a cornerstone for establishing guilt under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Establishing Guilt Under Section 308 of IPC

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of an 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."

Rationale on Conviction and Intent

Addressing the requirements for a conviction under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Court clarified that it is the intention or knowledge behind the act, rather than the severity of the resulting injury, that determines the offense. The Court relied on established precedents, including Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka ( "1994 Supp (3) SCC 235": 1994 CaseBase(SC) 633) and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., to validate the reliance on the victim's testimony. Furthermore, the Court cited Rakesh v. State of U.P. ( "(2021) 7 SCC 188": 2021 CaseBase(SC) 1436) to dismiss the appellant's argument regarding the lack of weapon recovery, noting that the prosecution's case was otherwise proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Background:

The case originated from an incident on July 16, 2018, where the appellant (A1), along with three others, was accused of stabbing the complainant's brother (PW2) following a verbal altercation. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons, acting with common intention, cornered PW2, with the appellant and two others holding him while the fourth accused stabbed him in the thigh.

The Trial Court had initially framed charges under Sections 307 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. While the appellant argued that the trial court failed to comply with Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the High Court, referring to Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala, held that such non-compliance does not vitiate proceedings unless substantial prejudice is proved.

Despite some family members of the victim turning hostile, the High Court found the testimony of the injured witness (PW2) consistent and supported by medical evidence from Safdarjung Hospital. The appellant's defense—a claim of a financial dispute—was dismissed as an afterthought. Consequently, the High Court found no infirmity in the judgment dated June 5, 2025, and upheld the five-year sentence for the offense under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.A. 76/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 138/2026
Case Title: SONU@ PANCHU@ LANGDA v. STATE
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shailesh Chandra Jha, (DHCLSC), Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Brij Mohan, P.S. Subzi Mandi.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 299