Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Now, let us examine the version of P.W.6 Awadhesh Ram in order to decide whether the accused persons by acid attack attempted to commit his murder. As according to the prosecution case, the injured was having dispute with the accused persons, evidence of the injured will have to be examined critically and cautiously for inferring the role played by the accused persons in the crime in question.

10. The Medical evidence on record makes it clear that P.W.6 Awadhesh Ram had suffered injuries in the incident of the acid attack in question at that time and in the same occurrence. He is, therefore, the most natural witness to the incident and there is inbuilt guarantee that a person injured in the occurrence is an eye witness to the incident. In the matter of Bonkaya Versus State of Maharashtra reported in (1995)2 SCC 447, the Supreme Court has held that injured witnesses are stamped witnesses whose presence on the spot admit no doubt. As being themselves victims, they would not leave the real assailants and substitute them with innocent persons. Evidence of injured eye witness cannot be discarded in toto on the ground of inimical Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2014 dt.13-07-2022 disposition towards the accused or because of improbabilities of narrating the details of actual attack. Evidence of such victim is required to be scrutinized with caution taking into account the factum of previous enmity and tendency to exaggerate and to implicate as many as possible. In the matter of Shivalingappa Kallayanappa Versus State of Karnataka reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235, the Supreme Court has held that 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, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case and it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. In State of U.P. Versus Kishan Chand, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 629, a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan Versus State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459).

13. P.W.6 Awadhesh Ram was subjected to the searching cross-examination by the defence. Several questions were put to him regarding directions of various places from the spot of the incident. It was suggested to him that he was doing Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.427 of 2014 dt.13-07-2022 work of some political party. He was also suggested that he had taken money from one Ramashish. However, the answers given by this witnesses to those questions are not affecting his version so far as the incident of sustaining acid attack by him is concerned. It is brought on record from his cross-examination that P.W.6 Awadhesh Ram was admitted as indoor patient in the hospital for treatment for more than 20 days and was then referred to the Hospital at Patna. In fact, this material elicited from the cross-examination of the injured is cementing the prosecution case of acid attack on him by the accused. So far as identification of the accused is concerned, this injured witness has clarified that the incident had not taken place in the fraction of a second. Initially, he was abused, then the accused scuffled with him and, thereafter, he was subjected to the acid attack. Therefore, identification of the accused persons by this witness cannot be doubted as ultimately the accused persons were his co-villagers and he was acquainted with them, may be because of disputes with them. Hence, stray sentence in cross- examination of P.W.6 Awadhesh Ram that the accused persons had worn the scarf on their faces is not sufficient to doubt the identification of the accused by this witness.