Where the FIR is lodged soon after the incident promptly, there is least possibility of
fabrication of a false story in a short interval.
When the conduct of witnesses who claim to be present at
the spot but do not report the matter to the police, nor do
interfere in the scuffle nor do take victims to the hospital,
such conduct is quite unnatural and unreasonable and is not
in accordance with the acceptable human behaviour making
their presence at the spot highly suspicious.
Injured is the most natural witness who is accorded a special
status in law.
Where efforts were made to summons and examine a witness
but he was not traceable, it cannot be said that the prosecution
did not intentionally or deliberately produce him in the Court
for giving evidence and no adverse inference can be drawn
against the prosecution.
The Court are concerned with quality and not quantity of
evidence and in a criminal trial conviction can be based on
the sole testimony of a witness if it inspires confidence.
Non recovery of crime weapon is not fatal to the prosecution
case and does not discredit the testimony of the injured.
To justify conviction under Section 307 IPC, It is not
essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should
have been inflicted. It is sufficient if there is present an
intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. If
the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or
intention to cause death, the nature, extent or character of
the injury or whether such injury was sufficient to actually
causing death are irrelevant factors for adjudging the
culpability under section 307 IPC.
The nature of weapon used, the intention expressed by the
accused at the act, the motive for commission of the offence,
the nature and size of the injuries, the parts of the body of
the victim selected for causing injuries and the severity of
the blow or blows are important factors that can be taken into consideration in coming to a finding whether in a
particular case, the accused can be convicted for an attempt
Victim is not to be forgotten in criminal justice system and
Section 357 Cr. P.C. Should be read as imposing mandatory
duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question of
awarding compensation in every case.
- Ankush Shivaji Gaikwal vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 (6) SCC 770.
- State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh and Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 324.
- Abdul Sayed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259.