Injured witness evidence and intent to kill by acid attack sustained conviction for wrongful restraint and attempt to murder.

An injured witness's consistent testimony, corroborated by medical, scientific and surrounding circumstances evidence, was held sufficient to prove the accused's involvement in wrongful restraint and assault. The Court accepted the early medical records, wound certificate, treatment evidence, chemical analysis and spontaneous statements as corroborative, and rejected the defence of self-infliction for want of support. Applying the settled test for Section 307 IPC, it held that a fatal injury is not required; the accused's conduct, words, restraint and pouring of acid were enough to infer intention and knowledge. The conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the evidence of the injured witness, supported by medical, scientific and surrounding circumstance evidence, established the accused's guilt for wrongful restraint and attempt to murder. (ii) Whether the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the sentence imposed required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the evidence of the injured witness, supported by medical, scientific and surrounding circumstance evidence, established the accused's guilt for wrongful restraint and attempt to murder.

Analysis: The injured witness gave a consistent account of the assault and the core version remained intact despite cross-examination. Her account was corroborated by the evidence of her father and grandmother, the early medical examination, the wound certificate, the treatment record, and the chemical analysis showing traces of formic acid on the victim's clothes and at the scene. The hostile or wavering testimony of some independent witnesses did not displace the substantive evidence. The Court also held that the defence version of self-infliction was unsupported by evidence. The surrounding circumstances and the admissible spontaneous statements made immediately after the occurrence were relied on as corroborative evidence.

Conclusion: The prosecution proved the occurrence and the accused's involvement beyond reasonable doubt, including the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the sentence imposed required interference.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled principle that for Section 307, proof of a fatal injury is not necessary and the decisive question is the intention or knowledge accompanying the overt act. The accused's conduct, the words attributed to him, the forceful restraint, and the pouring of acid over the victim's head were treated as sufficient to infer the requisite intention and knowledge. On sentence, the Court found no mitigating ground sufficient to justify reduction, having regard to the gravity and manner of the offence and the need for proportionate punishment.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the sentence were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were affirmed in full and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An injured witness's testimony, when materially corroborated by medical and scientific evidence and the surrounding circumstances, can sustain conviction, and an attempt to murder may be inferred from the accused's overt act and attendant intention or knowledge even if the injuries are not fatal.

---