Refaz Kotwar stabbed Mohd. Jamil Kotwar with a dagger. We see no reason to doubt testimony of witnesses examined. PW7 and PW8 are injured eye-witnesses. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 held, evidence of an injured eye-witness has great evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.

It is required to be noted, injury of a single blow was on stomach and near chest. Nature of injury was grievous, caused by a sharp cutting weapon. It is not so, offence occurred out of a sudden quarrel or blow was stuck in heat of moment. As observed and held by this Court, nobody can enter into a mind and intention has to be ascertained from weapon used, part of body chosen for assault and nature of injury caused. It is rightly held, offence under Section 307, IPC was committed.

– Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah, Sadakat Kotwar v. State of Jharkhand, [Criminal Appeal No. 1316 of 2021].

_____

The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters would not ordinarily permit rejection of evidence as a whole. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. The evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, [Criminal Appeal No. 1910 of 2010] decided on 29.03.2023.