Conviction under Sections 323/325 IPC upheld; sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

On 8 July 2009, an altercation allegedly occurred between the informant, Chano Choudhary, and appellant Sanjay Thakur. The appellants allegedly assaulted the informant, his wife Ranju Devi, and his father Bhumi Choudhary with lathis, causing injuries including a fracture to Bhumi Choudhary’s right forearm.

On the basis of the informant’s written report dated 9 July 2009, Puraini P.S. Case No. 45 of 2009 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the injured witnesses, the informant, supporting witnesses, and the medical officer. The defence adduced no oral or documentary evidence.

The trial court acquitted the appellants of the charges under Sections 307/34, 341 and 504 IPC, but convicted them under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC and sentenced them to concurrent terms of six months’ and three years’ simple imprisonment, respectively.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants voluntarily caused hurt and grievous hurt to the victims in furtherance of their common intention, attracting Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC?

Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, and the alleged lack of complete support from the medical evidence created reasonable doubt warranting interference with the conviction?

Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court required modification in view of the age of the occurrence and the appellants’ prolonged trial?

The Court applied Section 323 IPC, which penalises voluntarily causing hurt, and Section 325 IPC, which penalises voluntarily causing grievous hurt; the fracture injury supported the allegation of grievous hurt.

Section 34 IPC was applied on the principle that persons acting jointly with a shared common intention are liable for acts done in furtherance of that intention.

The Court further applied the evidentiary principle that reliable testimony of injured witnesses, when corroborated by medical evidence, can sustain a conviction, and that non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not by itself fatal unless it causes material prejudice to the accused.

No judicial precedents were cited in the judgment.

The Court found the occurrence of physical assault established through the consistent and trustworthy testimonies of the injured witnesses, P.Ws. 5 and 6, and the informant, P.W. 8.

Their presence and injuries were corroborated by the medical evidence and injury reports proved by P.W. 9, including the grievous fracture suffered by Bhumi Choudhary.

The appellants’ joint participation in the assault established the common intention necessary for Section 34 IPC.

Although the defence relied on interested witnesses, inconsistencies, medical discrepancies, and the absence of the Investigating Officer, the Court held that these matters did not undermine the core ocular and medical evidence or cause material prejudice.

The Court therefore upheld the acquittal on the more serious charges under Sections 307/34, 341 and 504 IPC, while sustaining the convictions under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC.

However, considering that the incident occurred in 2009 and that the appellants had undergone a prolonged trial, the Court found that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone.

The sentences of six months and three years’ simple imprisonment, directed to run concurrently, were modified and reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants.

The appellants were consequently discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, and the appeal was disposed of.