NARENDER SINGH & ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                   [2015] 12 S.C.R. 867


                NARENDER SINGH & ORS.                           A

                             v.
              STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
          (Criminal Appeal No. 2110 of2009 etc.)
                                                                B
                  SEPTEMBER 29, 2015.
   [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
            UDAY UMESH LAUT, JJ.]
      Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 rlw ss. 148 and 149 -          c
Prosecution under - Of 6 accused - Convicted by courts
below and sentenced to life imprisonment - Appeal to this
court by 5 of the accused - Held: Prosecution case is
supported by the evidence of the two eye-witness which was
fully corroborated bY. other witnesses- Other circumstances     D
of the case read along with .the version of the eye-witnesses
also sufficiently establish that the occurrence took place as
deposed by the eye-witn.esses - Involvement of the
appellants-accused was fully established - Hence, conviction
and sentence confirmed.                                         E
    Dismissing the appeals, the Court
    HELD: 1. It cannot be said tha1 registration of FIR
could not have been made at 10:45 p.m. inasmuch as
other consequential steps taken thereafter with F
particular reference to Exhibit P7, P1 A to Band P10 which
were all contemporaneous documents disclose that
immediately after the registration of FIR at 10:45p.m., P.W.
15 reached the place of occurrence anc! proceeded with G
further course of action. [Para 11] [875-D]
       2. The injuries sustained by P.W. 3 could not be said
to have been fake and his presence doubtful, inasmuch
it is· evident from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.1) who
examined P.W.3 on the night of the date of the event itself.    1-1
                              867
868       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 12 S.C.R.

 A There was a broad reference to the nature of injuries
    sustained by P.W.3 in Exhibit P1A. Therefore, reading
    Exhibits P1 A and P1 B together with the oral evidence of
    P.W.1, it has come out in evidence that P.W.3 sustained
    the injuries, in the night on the date of the event.
 B Therefore, it is not correct to say that P.W. 3 could not
    have been present at the place of occurrence. Evidence
   .of P. W.3 as an eye-witness was cogent in every respect.
    His account was fully supported by the version of P.W.6,
 c and also fully corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 7
    and 11. [Paras 12, 13] [875-E-F; 876-A-B, D-E]
        3. There is no serious discrepancy or infirmities in
    the preparation of the statutory records as well as any
    serious lacuna in the oral version of the witnesses
 D examined in support of the charges. Non-mention of
    PW.3 in Column 6 of Crime Details Form (Exhibit P7)
    would not in any way vitiate the case of the prosecution
  .'by virtue of the other cHnching evidence which
 E established the presence of P.W.3 at the place of
    occurrence. Therefore, it is not correct to say that.P.W.15
    was not truthful in registering the FIR as well as
    launching the prosecution case against the appellants.
    [Paras 14 and 15] [876-F; 877-A-B; E-F]
 F       4. Having regard to the features, namely, the
    registration of FIR at 10:45 p.m. on the date of the event,
    the inspection made by P.W.15at11 :10 p.m. on the same
    date; the sending of P.W. 3 for medical examination
    which was concluded by 1:30 a.m. on next day of the
 (I incident; and the shifting of the body of the deceased
    from the place of occurrence to the hospital by 7:30 a.m.
    on the next date to the event read along with the version
    of P.Ws. 3, ·6 and other supporting witnesses, it was
    sufficiently established that the occurrence took place
 H
    as spoken to by P.W. 3, 6 and others and the involvement
   NARENDER SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA                   869
                 PRADESH

of the appellants was, therefore, fully established. A
Therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be faulted.
[Paras 17 and 18] [878-C-E; 879-A]
    5. On a detailed reading of evidence of P.W. 10, it is
found that his evidence fully supported the case of the B
prosecution in regard to the nature of injuries inflicted
upon the deceased on \1is hand by the appellants and it
was also further supported by the weapons which were
recoverec! at the instance of the appellants. [Para 20]
[880-H; 881-A]                                             c
    6. So far as the delay in forwarding the Express
Report to the lllaka Magistrate was concerned, even
assuming the delay did really happen in forwarding the
Express Report, such a delay has not caused any
                                                       0
serious prejudice to the appellants. [Para 18] [879-D]
     Pala Singh v. State of Punjab (1972) 2 SCC 640:
     1973 (1) SCR 964; State of Kamataka v. Main
     Patel (1996) 8 sec 167: 1996 (2) SCR 919;
     Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. State           E
     of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 421: 2011 (7) SCR 1 -
     relied on.
                  Case Law Reference
   1973 (1) SCR 964        relied on.       Para 18            F

    1996 (2) SCR 919       relied on.       Para 18
    2011 (7) SCR 1         relied on.       Para 18
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal          G
No. 2110 of2009.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2006 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal
No. 666 <!>f 2000.
                                                              H
870         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 12 S.C.R.


                                    WITH
          Crl.A. No. 2111 of2009.
      Tripurari Ray, Dhirendra Singh Parmar, Suresh Kumar
  Sharma, Rajinder Singh, Susheel Tomar, Ms. Abha R. Sharma,
B Advs., fortheAppellants.

         Arjun Garg, Manish Yadav, Mishra Saurabh,Advs., for the
      Respondent.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
c
           FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. Out
      of 7 accused, A2 toA6 are the appellants before us in these
      two appeals.
       2. These appeals are directed against the common
D judgment and order dated 7th September, 2006 of the Division
  Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in
  CrimihalAppeal No. 666of2000. Altogether there were seven
  accused. One accused by name Ravi was a juvenile and,
  therefore, his case was separated and dealt with separately.
E As A 1 has not preferred any appeal, we are not concerned
  with his case.
        3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the
   prosecution is that on 27th June, 1997at10:00p.m. P.W.3, 6
F and the deceased were sitting and conversing with each other
   along with one Rangnath Sharma behind the Hotel of Jaggi
   Chourasia of village Katra. The deceased was the Sarpanch
   of the village near Katra which is part of Nayagaon. According
   to P.W. 3, there was sufficient light since the street lights were
G on apart from a chimney burning near the hotel. It was stated
   that the accused arrived at the spot, among whom A5 was
   holding a sword, A6 was holding a Farsa, A2 was having an
   axe while A 1, A3 and A4 were having lathis. On arrival at that
   spot, it was alleged thatA5 while abusing the deceased and
11
   making a pronouncement that he cannot escape that day, dealt
                   -
  NARENDER SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA                     871
PRADESH [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAJ.]

with a sword blow on the head of the deceased pursuant to A
which blood flush out and that thereafter A6 dealt a farsa blow
which also landed on the head of the deceased. Closely
followed by thatA2 caused an injury with an axe again on the
head of the deceased, after which the deceased fell down.
The other accused A 1, A3 and A4 stated to have caused further 8
injuries with lathis. P.W. 3, P.W. 6 and others pleaded with the
accused to spare the deceased upon which A5 with a warning
to the deceased that he should not contest against him in future
 left the place of occurrence along with other accused. P.W.3,
                                                                 c
thereafter stated to have reached the Police Station Saleha
which was hardly within one kilometer from the place of
 occurrence where the FIR Exhibit P3 came to be registered at
 10:45p.m.
     4. P.W. 15, the Investigating Officer after registration of D
the FIR stated to have rushed to the place of occurrence
between 11 :00 and 11 :15p.m. whereafter he prepared
Exhibits P7 P/1A, P/18 and subsequently ended with P10
which are the crime details form [Form No.2], application for
examination of injured P.W. 3 and the application for post · E
mortem. P.W. 3 was examined by P.W.1 who issued Exhibit
P1, M.L.C. Report. Pursuant to the requisition Exhibit P10
made by P.W.15, the post mortem was conducted on the body
of the deceased by P.W.10 and as many as 8 injuries were F
noted on the body of the deceased. Out of the 8 injuries, injury
Nos. 4,5, 6 and7 were noted as grievous injuries while the
other injuries were contusions.
     5. Based on the above details gathered, prosecution laid
the charge sheet as against the accused for offences under G
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code.
The trial Court, having considered the oral as well as
documentary evidence namely, P.Ws. 1to16 and Exhibits P1
to P31 convicted the appellants accused for the offence under
Section 302 read with Sections 148 and 149 IPC. The H
872         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A     appellants were imposed with the punishment of life
      imprisonment. As against the above conviction and sentence
      imposed, the appellants along with other accused namely, A 1
      preferred the appeal before the High Court. The Division Bench
      having confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the
8     appellants, they are before us.
         6. We heard Mr. Tripurari Ray, learned counsel for the
      appellants and Mr. Arjun Garg, learned counsel for the State.
            7. The main plank of attack on the judgment impugned in
c     these appeals are two-fold namely, that the FIR was ante-dated
      and that the appellants were falsely implicated. In support of
      the above submissions, Mr. Ray while making reference to
      the version of P.Ws. 1,3, 10 and 15 and Exhibits P/1 A, P/1 B,
      Pl and P10, contended that there were very many inconsistent
0
      circumstances which would show that the case was not as
      projected by the prosecution for implicating the appellants and,
      therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed are liable to
      be set aside. The learned counsel, by referring to the evidence
 E    of P. W. 3 as compared to the evidence of P. W. 15 contended
      that there were serious doubts as to whether the said FIR was
      registered at 10:45p.m. on 271h June, 1997 as claimed; whether
      P.W.3 was injured at all as claimed by him and as stated by
      P.W.1, that non-mentioning of the various details relating to
 F    the FIR, the names of accused in Exhibits P1A, P7 and P10
      would also belie the case of the prosecution and would support
      the stand of the appellants that the FIR was ante-dated. The
      learned counsel submitted that it was further strengthened by
      the fact that it was claimed by P.Ws. 3 and 6 that one Ranganath
G     Sharma was also present at the pla<?e of occurrence and that
      for no reason he was not examined by the prosecution. It was
      further contended that while the registration of the FIR was
      claimed to be 10:45p.m.on 271h June, 1997, there was no valid
H     explanation as to why the Express Report under Section 157
      of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not forwarded to the
  NARENDER SINGH & ORS. v. STATE Of MADHYA                   873
PRADESH [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAJ.]

Judicial /I/aka Magistrate forthwith which in the case on hand A
admittedly reached the learned Magistrate only at 1:20p.m.
on 30theJune, 1997.
     8. While elaborating his submission, learned counsel
pointed out that Exhibit P7 is the statutory form namely, Form R
No.2 called 'Crime Details Form', wherein there is a specific
column, namely, Column No.6 to note the description of the
injured persons, that the name of deceased Ram Bhuvan, son
of Sunder Lal Sharma alone was noted and without any valid
explanation the name of P.W.3 who was stated to have been c
injured in the same transaction was not mentioned. Learned
counsel then pointed out that in' Exhibit P1A, which is the
application for examination of injured P.W. 3, either the Crime
Number or the FIR Number was not noted apart from the fact
of non-mentioning of the time at which the said application D
was senttothe Doctor on 28111 June, 1997. The learned counsel
while making reference to the application·tor post mortem
Exhibit P10 also dated 28th June, 1997, pointed out that while
the said application was presented to the Doctor at 7:30~.m. E
on 28111 June, 1997, for conducting the post mortem, there was
no reference to any of the names of the accused whose names
were already disclosed to the police at 10:45p.m. as per FIR
registered at 10:45p.m.on 27111 June, 1997.
     9. The learned counsel also brought to our notice Exhibit F
08 to show that the Express Report was received by the II/aka
Magistrate only at 1:20p.m.on 30th June, 1997. The learned
counsel also while making reference to the evidence of P.W.1
contended that there was a specific suggestion put to P. W. 1
that the injuries alleged to have been sustained by P.W.3 was G
a fake one and thatthe examination of P.W.10, the Doctor who
conducted post mortem also revealed that the injuries which
were noted on the body of the deceased were not specifically
attributed to the alleged seized weapons from the accused H
and thereby creating serious doubts as to whether or not such
874       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A weapons were used and were the cause for the death of the
  deceased. The learned counsel also drew our attention to
  various other minor infirmities in the evidence of the
  prosecution and contended that the prosecution failed to
  establish the charges levelled against the appellants and
B consequently the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.
         10. As against the above submissions, Mr. Arjun Garg,
   learned counsel for the State by drawing our attention to the
   arrest of the appellants effected on 28th June, 1997 and the
c subsequent seizure made on 29th June, 1997 supported by
   Exhibits P22 to 24, as well as, Section 27 Statement under
   Exhibits P18 to P21, contended thatthe arrest of the accused
   and the seizure made by the panch witnesses duly established
   that the appellants were involved in the killing of the deceased
D as well as causing of the injuries on P.W.3. The learned counsel
   for the State submitted that even though there was a delay in
   forwarding the Express Report to the II/aka Magistrate the
   same did not cause any prejudice to the appellants and that
E the charges were found proved against the appellants. The
   learned counsel, further, contended that P.W.15 after
   registering the FIR forwarded the Express Report through the
   Police Constable Narendra Chauhan on 27th June, 1997 itself
   by noting it down in the Despatch Register and that though
F under Exhibit 08 the receipt of the same by the II/aka
   Magistrate is noted as 1:20p.m.on 3Qth June, 1997, he was
   unaware as to the reason which caused the delay. The learned
   counsel would contend that the II/aka Magistrate was at Panna
   wh.ich was 60KMS away from the place of occurrence and
G that though there was some delay in forwarding the receipt of
   the Express Report, since there was every clinching evidence
   in the form of eye witness account as well as other material
   evidence supported by medical evidence as well, as no
 · prejudice was caused to the appellants on account of such
H delay, no infirmity can be found in the judgment impugned in
  NARENDER SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA                        875
PRADESH [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAJ.]

these appeals.                                                     A

      11. Having heard respective counsel for the appellants as
well as the State, we are also convinced that the judgment
impugned does not call for interference. When we considered
the submission of learned counsel for the appellants with 8
particular reference to the evidence of P.W. 3 who was an
injured eye witness, it was contended that the FIR itself could
not have been registered at 10:45p.m. inasmuch as even
according to P.W. 3 his signature was obtained at a later point
of time. At the very outset, it must be stated that by referring to c
this part of the evi<:lence, we are not able to state that
registration of FIR could not have been made at 10:45p.m.
inasmuch as other consequential steps taken thereafter with
particular reference to Exhibit P7,P1A to Band P10 which
were all. contemporaneous documents which disclose that D
immediately after the registration of FIR at 10:45p.m., P.W.
15 reached the place of occurrence and proceeded with further
course of action. Therefore, the said contention stands
rejected.
                                                                   E
      12. As far as the contention that the injuries sustained by
 P.W. 3 could have been a fake one and consequently his
presence itself was not true, the said contention is also liable
to be rejected, inasmuch as we do find from the evidence of
P.W. 1 who examined P.W.3 on the night of 27th/28th June, 1997 F
itself noted the various injuries sustained by him in Exhibit P1 B
based on the application made under Exhibit P1A dated 28th
June, 1997 Exhibit P1 B discloses the time as 1:30a.m. in the
night on 28th June, 1997. In the evidence of P.W. 1 at the end
of the examination there was a specific question put to P.W. 1 G
as to the examination of P.W.3, wherein he made it explicit to
the effect that P.W. 3 was examined iri the night intervening
2Th and 28th June, 1997 and the injuries noted by him in Exhibit
P1 B was also confirmed by him in his oral evidence. In fact,
                                                                   H
there was a broad reference to the nature of injuries sustained
876         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A     by P.W.3 in Exhibit P1A. Therefore, reading Exhibits P1Aand
      P1B together with the oral evidence of P. W.1, it has come out
      in evidence that P.W.3 sustained the injuries on the night of
      27 1h June, 1997. Therefore.the submission that P.W. 3 could
      not have been present at the place of occurrence cannot be
 8    accepted.
        13. We come to the rest of the contentions. It must be
   stated that evidence of P.W.3 as an eye witness was cogent
   in every respect, as he narrated the manner in which the
 c occurrence took place on the night of 271h June, 1997, the role
   played by each of the accused and the subsequent events that
   occurred thereafter such as the complaint which he preferred
   in the Saleha Police Station, the registration of the FIR at
   10:45p.m., the subsequent visit of P.W. 15 to the place of
 D occurrence and the shifting of the body of the deceased to the
   hospital for carrying out the post mortem by P. W.10. The said
   part of the evidence of P. W. 3, as an eye witness account was
   fully supported by the version of P.W.6, and also fully
   corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 11 who reached
 E the place of occurrence on hearing the shouts of P.Ws. 3 and
   6.
         14. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants was
   that P.W. 15 was not truthful in registering the FIR as well as
 F launching the prosecution case against the appellants
   inasmuch as according to P.W. 5, the Constable who shifted
   the body of the deceased to the hospital in his evidence i:;tated
   that there was a short post mortem report issued by the Doctor
   which he delivered at the Police Station and that thereafter in
 G consultation with the so-called eye witness Ranganath Sharma
   who was not examined for no good reasons and who had a
   grudge against the appellants who all belonged to same
   community, the appellants were implicated in the offence.
   Though in the first blush, such a contention raised on behalf of
 H
   the appellants appeared to be appealing, when we refer to
  NARENDER SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA.                      877
PRADESH [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAJ.]

the various other contentions raised in support of the said A
submission, we find no substance in the said contention. First
of all, we do not find any serious discrepancy or infirmities in
the preparation of the statutory records as well as any serious
lacuna in the oral version of the witnesses examined in support
of the charges.                                                  B

      15. It was contended that in the Crime Details Form, Exhibit
P7, which is a statutory form wherein there was no mention as
to the nature of weapons used as well as the name of the so-
called injured eye witness P.W.3 and also the names of the c
accused though their names were very much known to the
prosecution as early as at 10:45p.m. on 271h June, 1997. Wh.en
we consider the said submissiof!, we firid that Form No. 2 is
an enclosed Report prepared by P.W. 15 in which in Column
No . 5 it is specifically mentioned while referring to motive of D
the crime either due to old enmity, it is mentioned "due to old
enmity, attacked with sharp weapon with intention to kill".
Similarly, in Column No. 6, under the heading" description of
injured persons", the name of deceased alone has been
mentioned and there is no reference to the injured eye witness E
P.W.3. Insofar as the non-mention of P.W. 3 in the said column
is concerned, we have also referred in detail as to how and
why such a non-mention would not in any way vitiate the case
of the prosecution by virtue of the other clinching evidence which F
established the presence of P.W. 3 at the place of occurrence
and the same reason will hold good here as well.
     16. Insofar as Column No. 5 is concerned, it has been
duly noted as to the use of sharp weapon. When we looked
into Column No. 10 the place of incident, the description of the G
place, the facility of chimney which was available and all other
minute details have been noted. It must also be stated that the
said Form was prepared on the basis of the visit made by
P.W. 15, Investigating Officer at23:10 hours i.e. 11 ;1 OP.M. on
                                                                 H
27TH June, 1997. In fact, when we later made a further
878        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 12 S.C.R.


 A reference to Exhibit P10 which is an application for carrying
   out the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased, it
   contains separate statements about the details of the dead
   body of the deceased. The same was despatched at 7:00a.m.
   on 28th June, 1997 and was received at the mortuary by
 8 7:30a.m. on the same day. We have also noted the time of the
   existence of P1A and P18 which when read along with the
   evidence of P. W.1 it is quite clear that the same came into
   existence by 1:30a.m. on the intervening night of 27th and 28th
 c June, 1997.
        17. Having regard to the above features, namely, the
   registration of FIR ~t 10:45p.m. on 27th June, 1997; the
   inspection made by P.W.15.at 11 :10p.m. on the same date;
   the sending of P.W. 3 for medical examination which was
 D concluded by 1:30a.m. on 28th June, 1997; and the shifting of
   the body of the deceased from the place of occurrence to the
   hospital by 7:30a.m. on 28th June, 1997 read along with the
   version of P.Ws. 3, 6 and other supporting witnesses it was
   sufficiently established that the occurrence took place as
 E spoken to by P. W. 3, 6 and others and the involvement of the
   appellants was, therefore, fully established.
        18. With that we come to the submission relating to the
   delay in forwarding of the Express Report to state that the
 F implication of the appellants was false. As has been rightly
   contended by the learned counsel for the State, even though
   the delay was quite apparent by virtue of Exhibit 08, in the first
   place, it must be stated that when there was overwhelming
   and incriminating evidence both oral as well as documentary
 G to support the case of the prosecution, as regards registration
   of the FIR and the subsequent investigation carried on coupled
   with the arrest of the accused on 28 1hJune, 1997 supported
   by reference made in Exhibits P22 to P24 as well as Section
 H 27 Reports under Exhibits P18 to 21, it must be held that in
   spite of such minor discrepancies pointed out on behalf of the
  NARENDER SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA                       879
PRADESH [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAJ.]

appellants, the case of the prosecution cannot be faulted. A
Therefore, the delay in forwarding the Express Report to the
II/aka Magistrate was concerned, 'it must also be noted that in
the evidence of P. W. 15 he stated that in the Despatch Register
on 271h June, 1997, itself a mention was made to the effect
that he handed it over to the Head Constable Narendra B
Chuahan for delivering it to the Magistrate which cannot be
doubted, inasmuch as, we do not find any suggestion having
been put to him that as to what transpired after he directed
the said Head Constable to deliver it to the lllaka Magistrate. c
Further, the II/aka Magistrate was in Panna, which is 60 kms.
away from the place of occurrence. In any event, even
assuming the delay did really happen in forwarding the Express
 Report, we find that such a delay has not caused any serious
 prejudice to the appellants. In this context, reliance was placed D
 on the decisions of this Court reported in Pala Singh v. State
 of Punjab (1972) 2 SCC 640, para 8 State of Karnataka v.
 Main Patel (1996) 8 SCC 167 Paras 15 and 16, Bhajan Singh
 @ Harbhaian Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC
 421 Paras 29 and 36, which decisions fully support the stand E
 of the respondents. We only refer to the last of the said
 decisions wherein in paras 29 an 36 it has been held as under:~
      "29. It is not that as if every delay in sending the report
      to the Magistrate would necessarily lead to the inference F
      that the FIR has not been lodged at the time stated or
      has been ante-timed or ante-dated or investigation is
      not fair and forthright. Every such delay is not fatal
      unless prejudice to the accused is shown. The
      expression "forthwith" mentioned there in does not G
      mean that the prosecution is required to explain delay
      of every hour in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. In a
      given case, if number of dead and injured persons is
      very high, delay in dispatching the report is natural. Of
      course, the same is to be sent within reasonable time H
880         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.

A          in the prevalent circumstances ..
           36. The evidence of the stamped witness must be given
           due weightage as his presence on the place of
           occurrence cannot be doubted. His statement is
B          generally considered to be vel}' reliable and it is unlikely
           that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely
           implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured
           witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has
           sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence
c          and this lends support to his testimony that he was
           present at the time of occurrence. Thus, the testimony
           of an injured witness is accorded a special status in
           law. Such a witness comes with a built-in guarantee of
           his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely
D          to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely
           implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required
           to discredit an injured witness." Thus, the evidence of
           an injured witness should be relied upon unless there
           are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis
 E
           of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide
           Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259;
           Kai/as v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1SCC793; Durbal
            V. State of U.P. (2011) 2 sec 676 and State of U.P. v.

 F         Naresh (2011) 4 SCC 324.)"
           19. As far as minor discrepancies noted and pointed out
      by learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, here
      again we find that such discrepancies does not in any way
      seriously impinge on the judgment impugned in these appeals.
 G
          20. As far as the submissions made based on the injuries,
      we do not find any scope to interfere with the decision in the
      impugned judgment on that score inasmuch as on a detailed
      reading of evidence of P.W. 10, we find that his evidence fully
      supported the case of the prosecution in regard to the nature
  NARENDER SINGH &ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA    881
PRADESH [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLAJ.]

of injuries inflicted upon the deceased on his hand by the A
appellants and it was also further supported by the weapons
which were recovered at the instance of the appellants. For all
the above reasons, we do not find any merit in these appeals
and the same are dismissed.
                                                                 B
Kalpana K Tripathy                          Appeals dismissed.