Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Testimony Regarding Presence and Location Negate Conviction for Voluntarily Causing Hurt

The de facto complainant alleged that on September 5, 2015, the appellant, Ajit Biswas, and his wife entered their premises to erect a bamboo scaffold for construction work

When the complainant’s father, Ramdhan Biswas, protested, the appellant allegedly slapped/pushed him, causing him to fall and die instantly

A case was registered under Sections 304/34 IPC. After trial, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly, acquitted both accused of charges under Sections 447, 506, and 304 IPC, but convicted the appellant under Section 323 IPC, sentencing him to six months of simple imprisonment

The appellant challenged this conviction on the grounds of testimonial inconsistencies and lack of evidence regarding the location of the incident

1. Whether the order of conviction under Section 323 of the IPC is sustainable when the appellant was acquitted of the primary charges of criminal trespass and culpable homicide

2. Whether the prosecution proved the occurrence of the incident beyond reasonable doubt given the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the alleged eyewitnesses

The Court evaluated the conviction under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt)

The principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding the credibility of witnesses, particularly the requirement for consistency in material facts to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt

The necessity of proving the locus in quo (place of occurrence) and the physical presence of witnesses to sustain a conviction

The Court found several "glaring inconsistencies" between the testimonies of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. P.W. 2 claimed he saw the incident from his own veranda, which was a 7-minute walk away, making his observation improbable in a densely populated area

P.W. 3 claimed P.W. 2 was physically present "at the spot" with him

While the prosecution alleged the incident occurred during a trespass, the trial court had already acquitted the appellant of Section 447 (criminal trespass), effectively demolishing the claim that the appellant entered the victim’s land

The Investigating Officer’s sketch map also failed to show the appellant’s house as being adjacent to the victim's, or any signs of construction at the alleged site

The High Court held that once the foundation of the incident (the trespass and the location) was discredited, a standalone conviction under Section 323 lacked a legal and factual basis

The appeal was allowed, and the judgement and order of conviction dated July 24, 2017, were set aside. The appellant was ordered to be set at liberty upon the execution of a bond under Section 437A of the Cr.P.C.