Conviction Set Aside Due to Ocular-Medical Inconsistencies and Lapses in Proving Official Duty and Intent

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on May 22, 2015, under Sections 323, 353, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution alleged that on February 5, 2006, while Constable Binod Kumar (P.W.1) was investigating an illegal VCD shop business at Bakrahat Market, the appellant (Sanat Jana) suddenly assaulted him with a hammer on the forehead and occipital region.

The investigation resulted in a charge sheet incorporating Section 307 (Attempt to Murder).

The defense argued that the appellant was falsely implicated, the presence of the police at the spot was not proved by General Diary entries, and the medical evidence contradicted the oral testimony.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt regarding the alleged assault and the specific intention required under Section 307 IPC.

2. Whether the ocular evidence provided by the injured witness and P.W.5 was consistent with the medical findings and procedural requirements.

The Court applied Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), noting that conviction requires intention or knowledge coupled with an overt act, regardless of whether the injury was fatal.

It relied on Hari Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh, which establishes that intention must be gathered from the nature of the weapon, the severity of the blow, and the part of the body targeted.

The Court also invoked the principle from Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, stating that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden to prove a prima facie case.

Finally, it applied precedents regarding the reliability of witnesses (Krishnegowda vs. State of Karnataka) and the adverse impact of non-production of General Diary entries (State of Uttarakhand vs. Rajbir).

The Court found several "glaring lapses" in the prosecution's case.

Significantly, the "Command Certificate" authorizing the police presence was a photocopy and held no evidentiary value.

There were major inconsistencies regarding the author of the complaint; P.W.1 claimed he wrote it, while P.W.2 stated in cross-examination that he was the scribe.

The medical evidence (P.W.8) failed to corroborate the use of a hammer, as the doctor testified the blunt injuries could have resulted from a fall or dashing against a wall.

The offending weapon was never recovered.

Despite the incident occurring in a crowded market, multiple independent witnesses (P.W.2, 3, 4, 7) turned hostile or failed to identify the appellant, leaving only the inconsistent testimonies of the police personnel.

The court noted that the injured victim signed the complaint but used a Left Thumb Impression (LTI) on the injury report without explanation, further clouding the credibility of the evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment and order of conviction dated May 22, 2015, were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges under Sections 323, 353, and 307 IPC. The appellant was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith subject to compliance with Section 437A CrPC.