After 8-Day FIR Delay And Tainted Evidence, P&H HC Acquits Two Men In Plot-Payment Assault Case

The appellants were separately tried in connection with an incident at a property-dealership shop arising from a dispute over payment for plots.

The complainant alleged that Mandeep struck him with a wooden spade handle and that Ajmer shared his common intention.

Both appellants were charged under Sections 307/34 IPC but acquitted of that charge and convicted under Sections 325/34 IPC, each receiving three years’ imprisonment and a fine of ₹3,000.

In the appeals, the Court considered the records separately and delivered a common judgment.

Section 222 Cr.P.C. permits conviction for a minor offence even where the accused was charged with a more serious offence; Section 221(2) Cr.P.C. may also be relevant where the evidence establishes a different offence.

The Court distinguished a case where the prosecution’s core account is proved and only the intention to kill is not established from one where the underlying evidence of the occurrence and injury is itself unreliable: in the latter situation, that evidence cannot sustain conviction for the lesser offence.

Applying the principles in Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 4 SCC 422, the Court noted that medical evidence may undermine an eyewitness account where it specifically rules out the claimed injury.

Under Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P., (1952) 2 SCC 560, and Raja @ Rajinder v. State of Haryana, 2015(3) SCR 947, a court should separate truth from falsehood where possible, but may reject the evidence as a whole where the two are inextricably intertwined.

The Court found that the trial courts’ assessment went beyond rejecting an intention to kill: the prosecution’s account and supporting evidence were materially undermined.

The records disclosed an unexplained eight-day delay in registering the FIR, evidence that the complainant remained conscious during the relevant period, suppression or mishandling of Mandeep’s counter-version and injuries, deficiencies in the investigation and weapon evidence, and inconsistencies in the medical evidence concerning the location and nature of the fracture.

In Ajmer’s case, no injury was attributed to him directly, and the evidence of his alleged role and common intention was also found unreliable.

Because the defects affected the core occurrence and injury evidence, the Court held that it could not be relied upon to sustain a lesser conviction under Section 325/34 IPC.

Both appeals were allowed, both appellants were acquitted by benefit of doubt, and any bail bonds were discharged.