Contradictory witness testimonies and absence of medical corroboration for alleged injuries warrant acquittal in assault cases.

On August 29, 2019, the appellant (complainant) was cultivating land with several laborers when the respondents allegedly arrived and contested his right to the property.

The complainant alleged that the respondents used obscene language, threatened to kill them, and physically assaulted the laborers with hands and fists.

An FIR was subsequently registered under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, and 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

After a trial in Special Criminal Case No. 10/2021, the Sessions Judge, Kanker, acquitted the respondents on February 20, 2023.

The appellant filed this appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), challenging the legality of the acquittal.

1. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents given the ocular evidence provided by the complainant and his laborers

2. Whether the prosecution established the ingredients of Sections 294, 323, and 506 Part-II of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt

The court primarily applied Sections 294 (obscene acts and songs), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 Part-II (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, read with the principle of common intention under Section 34

Procedurally, the court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 372 of the CrPC, which grants the victim the right to appeal against an acquittal.

The court also adhered to the evidentiary principle that material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence, as well as inconsistencies between an FIR and trial testimony, weaken the prosecution's case.

The court found significant discrepancies between the written report (Ex.P-1) and the oral testimonies of the witnesses.

While the initial report alleged that the respondents assaulted the laborers, the complainant’s (PW-1) testimony during the trial introduced new allegations—such as the respondent-Rammanohar catching his collar and abusing him—which were absent from the original report.

Furthermore, although PW-5 claimed the laborers sustained injuries, the medical evidence provided by Dr. Tejus Shah (PW-8) and the corresponding medical reports (Ex.P-5 to P-7) confirmed that no external injuries were found on any of the alleged victims.

The court also noted that the complainant and his laborers were themselves charge-sheeted in a counter-case involving more serious offenses, including Section 307 IPC and provisions of the SC/ST Act, arising from the same incident.

Consequently, the court determined that the prosecution’s version lacked corroboration and failed to overcome the threshold of reasonable doubt.

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no illegality or propriety in the acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 294, 323/34, and 506 Part-II of the IPC.

The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage for being devoid of merit.