EVIDENCE OF AN INJURED WITNESS

EVIDENCE OF AN INJURED WITNESS:

The evidence of the injured eyewitnesses regarding the scene of offence remained unshaken. The injured witnesses are also termed as stamped witnesses.

In criminal jurisprudence, the testimony of an injured witness has high evidentiary value, for, ordinarily a person who suffered injuries at the hands of another would not shield the real offender and falsely implicate an innocent. 

This view is supported by a catena of judgments (Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar; Malkan Singh v. State of U.P; Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab; Appabhai v. State of Gujarat; Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra; Bhag Singh v. State of Punjab; Mohar v. State of U.P.; Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan; Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan; Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P.; and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra).

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mansingh and others, the Supreme Court held that the evidence of injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.

In B.K. Channappa v. State of Karnataka, though the Supreme Court found certain contradictions in the evidence of the material witnesses, it has placed heavy reliance on the testimony of injured witnesses despite some improvements, contradictions and omissions therein. After referring to relevant case law on this aspect, the Supreme Court in Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., succinctly summarized the law as under:

"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 sequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt 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."