Injured witness evidence can outweigh minor inconsistencies and non-fatal FIR delay when the prosecution case is otherwise reliable.

Trustworthy testimony of an injured witness and other corroborative ocular evidence can sustain convictions even where the defence alleges delay in lodging or forwarding the FIR, inconsistencies with medical evidence, absence of independent witnesses, and self-defence. The Court found no material delay that would vitiate the prosecution case, and treated minor medical-ocular discrepancies as non-fatal because the injuries and manner of assault were substantially supported by the record. It also reaffirmed that related witnesses may be accepted if reliable, and that reversal of acquittal is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse or unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the convictions under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and the reversal of acquittal were justified despite the alleged delay in lodging and forwarding the FIR, alleged inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, absence of independent witnesses, and the plea of self-defence.

Analysis: The evidence of the complainant and the injured witness was found trustworthy and mutually corroborative. The Court held that there was no material delay in lodging the FIR or in forwarding it to the Magistrate, and that any delay in dispatch would not by itself vitiate the prosecution case when the evidence was otherwise reliable. It further held that minor discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence did not go to the root of the prosecution case, especially where the injuries and manner of assault were substantially supported by the medical record. The Court also reiterated that the testimony of an injured witness carries special evidentiary value, that related witnesses may be relied upon if trustworthy, and that interference with an acquittal is permissible where the trial court's view is perverse. The plea of self-defence was rejected as improbable.

Conclusion: The convictions were upheld, the reversal of acquittal was sustained, and the appellants were not entitled to benefit from the alleged procedural or evidentiary defects.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed and the High Court's judgment was affirmed in full, leaving the convictions and sentences intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Trustworthy ocular evidence of an injured witness can prevail over minor inconsistencies or non-fatal delay, and an appellate court may interfere with acquittal only when the trial court's view is perverse or unsustainable.

---