Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad decided two criminal appeals arising from the judgment of the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2008, where the appellants were convicted for offences including murder, attempt to murder, and rioting. The prosecution case was that on 29 October 2007, the appellants, as part of a political rivalry, formed an unlawful assembly armed with weapons and attacked the first informant and his friends near a temple in Nevasa, Ahmednagar, resulting in the death of two persons and injuries to several others. The trial court convicted the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 149 and under the Arms Act, sentencing them to life imprisonment and other terms. During the appeal, the primary challenge by the appellants related to the credibility of the eye-witnesses, specifically pointing out improvements in the deposition of P.W.1 over his FIR statement and the delay in recording the statement of P.W.2, who had sustained grievous injuries. The State supported the convictions, arguing that the evidence of the injured witnesses was reliable and the delay was justified by the medical urgency. The court examined the depositions and found that P.W.1's improvements about which accused used which weapon on him did not undermine his credibility because the medical evidence confirmed that he suffered the injuries as narrated, and a victim in such a chaotic incident would remember his own involvement clearly. Regarding P.W.2, the court held that the delay in recording his statement was not fatal because the witness had a very serious injury—a stab wound that was visceral deep—and both he and the investigating officer naturally prioritized obtaining medical treatment over recording the statement; thus, the delay was sufficiently explained. The court upheld the credibility of the eye-witnesses and dismissed the appeals, affirming the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Evidence - Credibility of Injured Witness - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 3, 45 - Minor omissions or improvements in the FIR by an injured witness regarding the exact authorship of his injuries do not necessarily affect his credibility when medical evidence corroborates the existence and nature of the injuries; in the present case, the witness named the assailants and the medical evidence proved the injuries, therefore the improvements did not render him unreliable. Held that the testimony of P.W.1 was credible despite the improvements. (Paras 11-12) B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Delay in Recording Statement - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 161 - A delay in recording the statement of a seriously injured witness under Section 161 CrPC is not fatal to the prosecution if the delay is explained by the necessity of providing immediate medical treatment; the witness and the investigating officer would naturally prioritize medical help over recording the statement. Held that in the present case, the witness had a very serious injury and the investigating officer had sufficient excuse for not recording the statement earlier. (Para 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the testimony of eye-witnesses is credible despite minor improvements in deposition from the FIR and despite delay in recording the statement of a seriously injured witness; and whether the convictions under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 324, 325 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 are sustainable.
Law Points
- Minor omissions in FIR by injured witness do not necessarily affect credibility if medical evidence corroborates injuries
- delay in recording statement of seriously injured witness under Section 161 CrPC is not fatal when medical treatment was the priority.
