Conviction cannot stand where prosecution evidence lacks corroboration and material witnesses remain unexamined.

The prosecution arose from an FIR lodged by Susmita Nath alleging that, on 29 May 2021, the five petitioners forcibly entered her house, assaulted her and her family members, and that certain accused persons also outraged the modesty of her and her mother.

After investigation, the police initially filed a charge-sheet against five women and not against the present petitioners.

During trial, the petitioners were subsequently arrayed as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

The Trial Court convicted them under Section 323 IPC and sentenced each to 15 days’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000, with a default sentence of one week’s simple imprisonment; the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

The Sessions Court affirmed the conviction on 6 March 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2023.

In revision, the petitioners contended that, apart from the informant, none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case; the injured brother, the informant’s parents, and the Investigating Officer were not examined.

Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 323 IPC were sustainable when the material injured witnesses, the informant’s parents, and the Investigating Officer were not examined, and the prosecution evidence—apart from the informant—did not implicate the petitioners.

Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had misread or perversely appreciated the evidence so as to warrant interference in criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.

The Court exercised revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. to examine whether the subordinate courts’ findings suffered from material infirmity or perversity.

Section 319 Cr.P.C. permits a court to proceed against a person appearing from the evidence to have committed an offence, but such impleadment must ultimately be supported by reliable trial evidence.

Section 323 IPC penalises voluntarily causing hurt.

The governing evidentiary principle applied was that a criminal conviction must rest on reliable, cogent, and incriminating evidence establishing the accused’s involvement beyond reasonable doubt; where the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence and material witnesses are withheld, conviction cannot be sustained.

The Court found that PW-1, the informant, was the only witness who directly implicated the petitioners.

PW-2 merely stated that he saw the injured brother at the hospital and had been told that some persons, including Suman Paul, assaulted him; PW-3 and PW-4 did not support the prosecution, PW-6 could not state how the injuries were caused, and PW-7 did not identify the persons allegedly fleeing from the house.

The injured brother and the informant’s parents were not examined, although they were material witnesses, and the Investigating Officer was also not produced.

The medical evidence did not reliably connect the injuries to the present case because the doctor’s report lacked the examination time, case number, and the patient’s parentage, and the doctor could not establish the case in which the patient had been examined.

The Court further noted that the original investigation had not implicated the petitioners and that even the other prosecution witnesses did not speak to their involvement.

Accordingly, the Court held that the courts below had misinterpreted the evidence and reached a perverse conclusion unsupported by reliable proof.

It held that the conviction under Section 323 IPC was not sustainable because the prosecution failed to produce reliable and corroborative evidence connecting the petitioners with the alleged assault.

The revision petition was allowed; the Sessions Court judgment dated 6 March 2024 and the Trial Court judgment dated 17 August 2023 were set aside.

The petitioners were acquitted, and their sureties were discharged.

The lower-court records were directed to be returned, and the revision petition and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.