Injured witness evidence and medical corroboration can sustain conviction; nondisclosure of investigation statements needs proven prejudice.

Injured eye-witness testimony, when supported by medical evidence and corroborating witnesses, can sustain a conviction despite minor discrepancies in the account of events and the absence of independent witnesses. In appellate review, factual interference is justified where the evidence supports reversal of acquittal. The statutory duty to supply prior investigation statements under the Code protects effective cross-examination, but breach does not automatically vitiate the trial; the accused must show prejudice or failure of justice. On the facts, no such prejudice was proved, so the conviction was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of the injured eye-witnesses and the medical evidence despite discrepancies and absence of independent witnesses; (ii) whether failure to supply the true statements recorded during investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the trial or caused prejudice requiring reversal of the conviction.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of the injured eye-witnesses and the medical evidence despite discrepancies and absence of independent witnesses.

Analysis: The presence of the injured witnesses at the scene was strongly supported by their contemporaneous injuries, and their testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and by other witnesses. Minor discrepancies about the sequence of firing and estimates of distance did not discredit the core prosecution version. In an appeal from acquittal, the appellate court was required to give due weight to the trial court's view, but could interfere where the evidence justified reversal of acquittal.

Conclusion: The conviction was rightly sustained on the evidence, and the challenge to the High Court's appreciation of facts failed.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to supply the true statements recorded during investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the trial or caused prejudice requiring reversal of the conviction.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under sections 161, 162, 173(4) and 207A(3) of the Code gave the accused a valuable right to obtain prior statements for effective cross-examination, but breach of that duty did not automatically nullify the trial. The decisive question was whether the defect had in fact caused prejudice or a failure of justice. On the facts, the Court found that the defective handling of the police notes did not shown to have prejudiced the appellant in a manner warranting interference under section 537.

Conclusion: The irregularity did not vitiate the trial, and no prejudice sufficient to set aside the conviction was established.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the finding of guilt was supported by reliable evidence and the procedural defect in supply of investigation statements did not occasion a failure of justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Breach of the statutory obligation to furnish investigation statements does not by itself invalidate a criminal trial or conviction unless the accused shows prejudice or failure of justice, and minor discrepancies in witness estimates do not necessarily outweigh trustworthy injured-witness and medical corroboration.

---