Material contradictions in victim testimony and lack of independent corroboration warrant acquittal in criminal assault cases.

The State of Chhattisgarh filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment dated July 23, 2018, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur

The trial court had acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 323, and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The prosecution case originated from an FIR lodged by the complainant, Raghunath Ram, alleging that on December 19, 2005, the respondents and two others (one deceased, one absconding) verbally abused and physically assaulted him with hands and fists after a brief verbal exchange

The complainant alleged that the assault resulted in three broken teeth and multiple bodily injuries, an incident purportedly witnessed by one Vikram Sao (Biganram)

1. Whether the trial court's order of acquittal was perverse or illegal due to a misappreciation of the evidence provided by the complainant and prosecution witnesses

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt in light of contradictions in testimony and the hostility of material witnesses

The Court applied the provisions of Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal

Substantively, the case involved Sections 294 (obscene acts and songs), 506 Part-II (criminal intimidation), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 325 read with 34 (grievous hurt with common intention) of the IPC

The court also relied on the evidentiary principles regarding the reliability of witness testimony, the weight of hearsay evidence, and the impact of a material witness turning hostile

The Court analyzed the testimony of PW-1 (the complainant) and noted a significant disparity: while the original FIR recorded that three teeth were broken, PW-1 testified in court that six teeth were broken

This inconsistency weakened the credibility of his version

Furthermore, the alleged eyewitness, Biganram (PW-2), turned hostile and contradicted the prosecution’s narrative, stating that the complainant was in a drunken state and that he (PW-2) had closed his shop and left before any alleged incident occurred

The Court further determined that the testimonies of PW-3, PW-4, and PW-5 (relatives of the complainant) were purely hearsay, as their information originated from PW-2, who had already denied witnessing the event

Consequently, the Court found that the prosecution failed to lead any cogent or reliable evidence to establish the charges

The Court found no grounds for interference with the lower court’s judgment

The appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit