above principles, the Court should consider whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe the presence of PWs.1, 2, 6 and 7-eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime and whether there was anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 6 and 7 must be tested in the light of other evidence and their own earlier versions to the Police. From perusal of the evidence, it appears that on 30-3-2009 at 1:30 p.m., PW.1 was proceeding towards her aunt's house along with PW.6. The accused snatched mangalya chain of PW.1 and when PWs.1 and 6 raised hue and cry, PWs.2 and 7 chased the accused, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW.7 on his abdomen and ultimately, PWs.2 and 7 caught hold the accused and recovered the mangalya chain from him. This evidence is corroborated with each other. The fact that PWs.1 and 7 sustained injuries are also corroborated by medical evidence of PW.8-Dr. Jagadesh Patil. It is settled law that testimony of an injured witness is accorded, a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built-in
