Non-Examination of Investigating Officer and Initial Treating Physician Prejudices Defence and Vitiates Conviction

The prosecution alleged that on June 15, 2006, following a dispute over digging a hand-pump, the appellant, Judagi Thakur, pierced the informant’s chest with a pair of scissors.

The appellant was subsequently charged under Sections 323, 341, 324, and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

On September 6, 2018, the Trial Court (Additional District and Sessions Judge – V, Patna) convicted the appellant under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to two years of simple imprisonment.

The appellant challenged this conviction before the High Court.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, given the non-examination of material witnesses and the Investigating Officer.

2. Whether the lack of primary medical evidence and the hostility of eye-witnesses vitiate the conviction under Section 324 IPC.

The Court applied the principles of criminal jurisprudence requiring the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code regarding voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.

The Court emphasized the necessity of examining the Investigating Officer to prove the place and manner of occurrence, and the Examining Doctor to prove the nature of injuries under the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court observed that out of seven witnesses, three eye-witnesses (P.W. 2, 3, and 4) turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution.

Crucially, the Investigating Officer was not examined, which resulted in a failure to legally establish the place and manner of the occurrence.

Furthermore, the doctor who initially treated the informant at the Primary Health Centre was not examined, and the primary injury report was never brought on record; only a subsequent report from PMCH was exhibited.

The Court reasoned that the non-examination of these material witnesses caused significant prejudice to the defense, as the testimony of the remaining witnesses (informant and wife) was insufficient to overcome the inconsistencies and the lack of corroborating independent evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated September 6, 2018, were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges and discharged from his bail bonds.