Conviction under Sections 294, 307 and 326 IPC affirmed; Section 307 sentence reduced to seven years.

On 12 August 2018, near Maisem Cement Factory Railway Gate No. 2, Damoh, the appellants allegedly abused Bharat Patel in obscene language and assaulted him with lathis in furtherance of their common intention.

Bharat sustained multiple injuries, including serious injuries to his head and left eye, ultimately resulting in permanent loss of vision in the left eye and the need for an artificial eye.

Crime No. 551/2018 was registered for offences under Sections 294, 307 and 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

After trial, the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, convicted both appellants and imposed concurrent sentences, including ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and nine years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC.

The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence under Section 374(2) CrPC, alleging contradictions in the prosecution evidence, lack of weapon recovery, doubtful medical evidence, delay in the FIR, prior enmity and false implication.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants assaulted Bharat Patel and committed offences under Sections 294, 307 and 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Whether the testimony of the injured complainant, corroborated by the medical evidence, was sufficient to sustain the appellants’ conviction despite the alleged contradictions, prior enmity and absence of independent eyewitnesses.

Whether the sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment imposed under Section 307 IPC warranted interference or reduction in appeal.

The Court applied Section 374(2) of the CrPC, governing appeals against convictions by a Sessions Court.

It applied Sections 294, 307 and 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC: Section 294 penalises obscene acts or words in a public place; Section 307 concerns attempt to murder, requiring the requisite intention or knowledge together with an act towards its commission; Section 326 concerns voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means; and Section 34 attributes liability for acts done in furtherance of common intention.

The Court relied on the established evidentiary principle that the testimony of an injured witness carries substantial weight because such a witness is a natural participant in the occurrence and ordinarily would not falsely implicate innocent persons while exonerating the real assailants.

It further applied the principle that reliable ocular testimony, when materially corroborated by medical evidence, can sustain a conviction, and that a mere allegation of previous enmity or false implication is insufficient to discredit otherwise trustworthy evidence.

The Court found Bharat Patel’s testimony natural, consistent and trustworthy.

As the injured complainant, he gave a direct account of the assault and identified the appellants; his testimony remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination.

The medical evidence materially corroborated his account: the doctors found seven injuries, including five on the head, and established that the left eye had been completely damaged, requiring implantation of an artificial eye.

The nature, number and location of the injuries were consistent with an assault using lathis directed at vital parts of the body, thereby supporting the finding of grievous hurt and the requisite knowledge for Section 307 IPC.

The Court rejected the defence submissions concerning prior enmity, interested witnesses and lack of independent eyewitnesses, holding that these were either unsupported assertions or insufficient to undermine the injured witness’s evidence, particularly when corroborated by medical testimony.

It therefore found no perversity or misappreciation of evidence in the Trial Court’s conviction.

However, considering that the incident occurred in 2018, that the appellants had undergone substantial incarceration and that there was no allegation of misuse of liberty during the appeal, the Court considered a limited reduction of the Section 307 sentence appropriate.

The Court affirmed the appellants’ convictions under Sections 294, 307 and 326 read with Section 34 of the IPC, along with the fines, default stipulations and sentences imposed for Sections 294 and 326 IPC.

However, the substantive sentence under Section 307 IPC was reduced from ten years’ rigorous imprisonment to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.

All substantive sentences were otherwise maintained to run concurrently, and the appellants were directed to undergo the remaining part of the modified sentence in accordance with law.