Delhi High Court: Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court judgment in Sate of MP v. Mansingh (2003) 10 SCC 414, the Court held that the evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, his statements are not to be discarded lightly even at the absence of it being corroborated by any public witness because a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident hence his testimony comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s). However, if there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein then his evidence should not be relied on. In the present case, the accused got acid splashed on the victim through his co-accused when the victim refused to establish any kind of love relationship with him. The Court, relying on the evidence of the sole injured witness, held that it will be erroneous to hold that non examination of a public witness by itself, gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution or the testimony of an injured victim, which is otherwise creditworthy, cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by public witnesses. It is trite law that evidence should be weighed and not counted and conviction can be based upon sole witness, if cogent and reliable. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. [Naeem Khan v. State, Criminal Appeal No. 980 of 2009, decided on October 07, 2013]
Posted on: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:17:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015