A Section 326 conviction cannot stand without cogent, trustworthy evidence linking the accused to the assault.

The prosecution alleged that, during a dispute over access to land for laying pipes on 15 July 2010, Accused No. 2 struck the injured witness, PW4, with a machete, while Accused Nos. 1 and 3 assaulted him with tomato-plant sticks.

The Sessions Court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC but convicted them under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each to four years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.

The accused appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC, challenging the conviction.

The Court considered Sections 326 and 34 IPC, under which the prosecution had to establish the commission of grievous hurt and the accused’s shared liability for the offence.

It also considered Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which the Court treated as prescribing mandatory requirements concerning seizure of property.

The Court’s stated evidentiary basis was that conviction required cogent, reliable evidence; it cited no precedent.

The Court found that, apart from PW4’s testimony, the prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case.

PW4 did not identify MOs. 1 to 3 as the weapons used in the assault, and the seizure mahazar witnesses turned hostile.

The weapons were seized 52 days after the incident and the injured person’s clothes 105 days after it; the investigating officer also submitted the property forms later.

The Court held that these circumstances, together with the failure to comply with Section 102 CrPC, left no cogent and corroborating evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction.

It ordered that their bail bonds stand cancelled and directed the Trial Court to refund any fine deposited.