Conviction Upheld Despite Non-Examination of Medical Officer and Investigating Officer Based on Consistent Injured Witness Testimony

The prosecution alleged that on July 3, 2007, the appellants (Tapan Pradhan, Santosh Lohar, and Konda Pradhan) and others confronted the informant (P.W.-3) and his brother (P.W.-2) over a dispute involving a dumper and demands for Rangdari (extortion).

Tapan Pradhan allegedly struck P.W.-2 on the neck with a sword, while others used lathis and iron rods.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants on June 3, 2009, for various offenses under the IPC but granted them the benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C.

One original appellant, Narottam Pradhan, died during the pendency of the appeal, and his case was abated.

The surviving appellants challenged their conviction on grounds of non-examination of the doctor, the Investigating Officer, and independent witnesses.

Whether the conviction of the appellants is sustainable in the absence of the injury report, the examining doctor, and the Investigating Officer.

Whether the testimony of interested/related witnesses (P.W.-1, P.W.-2, and P.W.-3) is sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which provides for the release of certain offenders on probation of good conduct instead of sentencing them to imprisonment.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections: 147 (Punishment for rioting), 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 323 (Voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 341 (Wrongful restraint), and 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object).

The Court noted that despite the defense's arguments regarding missing medical evidence and the absence of the Investigating Officer, the testimony of the injured witness (P.W.-2) was consistent and credible.

P.W.-2 explicitly identified Tapan Pradhan as the assailant who struck him with a sword and the other appellants as those who surrounded and assaulted him with blunt weapons.

The Court found that the ocular evidence provided by the injured victim and eye-witnesses (P.W.-1 and P.W.-3) sufficiently established the occurrence and the roles of the appellants.

Regarding the sentence, the Court observed that the Trial Court had already taken a "lenient view" by granting probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. because it was a first offense.

Since the probation period of one year had long since expired (June 2010), there was no reason to interfere with the lower court's discretion.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction dated June 3, 2009. The order of release on a probation bond of Rs. 10,000 for one year was maintained, noting that the bond period had already concluded.