Conviction sustained where credible injured witness testimonies are corroborated by medical evidence despite investigative lapses.

The appellants were accused of forming an unlawful assembly on the basis of a dispute over rainwater drainage involving a ridge construction.

It was alleged that the accused, armed with lathis, farsa, and arrows, assaulted the informant (P.W. 5) and his family.

The Trial Court (1st Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea) acquitted the appellants of charges under Sections 307 and 324 IPC but convicted them under Sections 147, 148, and 323 IPC.

The appellants were directed to be released on a probation bond of Rs. 10,000/- for one year.

The appellants challenged this conviction primarily on the grounds of non-examination of the Investigating Officer, contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and existing enmity.

1. Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the non-recovery of alleged weapons (farsa and arrow) caused material prejudice to the defence.

2. Whether the medical evidence, which showed simple injuries caused by hard and blunt substances, contradicted the ocular testimony regarding the use of deadly weapons like farsa and arrows.

3. Whether the conviction under Sections 147, 148, and 323 IPC was sustainable despite these discrepancies.

The Court applied Section 323 of the IPC concerning punishment for voluntarily causing hurt and Sections 147 and 148 regarding rioting and being armed with deadly weapons.

It relied on the "litmus test" for determining criminal intention established in Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., emphasizing the nature of the weapon, the vital nature of the injury site, and the presence of sudden quarrel.

It further applied the principle from Joseph v. State of Kerala and Jugatram v. State of Chhattisgarh, holding that where injuries are caused by non-deadly weapons (like lathis) during a trivial dispute, the intent to murder cannot be presumed.

The Court observed that while P.W. 3, 4, and 5 alleged the use of an arrow and farsa, the medical report by P.W. 6 only documented simple injuries (lacerations and bruises) caused by hard and blunt substances, with no evidence of penetrating or incised wounds.

The Court noted that the Investigating Officer was not examined and the weapons were never recovered.

However, the High Court determined that these investigative lapses did not demolish the core prosecution case.

Since the injured witnesses (P.W. 3, 4, and 5) provided credible and consistent testimony regarding the assault, the ocular evidence remained reliable for the lesser charge of causing hurt.

The Court reasoned that since the appellants had already served their probation period since 2012 without adverse reports, further substantive punishment was unnecessary.

The Court "allowed" the appeal in terms of formal disposal, directing that the appellants be released as they had already satisfied the conditions of their probation.

The Patna High Court Legal Services Committee was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Amicus Curiae.