Non-examination of Investigating Officer is not fatal where ocular evidence remains cogent and reliable.

The victim, Anita Devi, married Rishi Kumar Patwa on April 5, 1998.

The informant (the victim’s father) alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her in-laws for a dowry demand of ₹70,000, and her ornaments were retained by the accused.

It was further alleged that Appellant No. 3 (Guru Bachan Patwa) outraged her modesty and that an assault during her pregnancy resulted in a miscarriage.

A complaint was filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., leading to the registration of Rohtas P.S. Case No. 139 of 2001.

The trial court convicted all appellants under Sections 406 and 323 of the IPC, and Appellant No. 3 additionally under Section 354 IPC.

The appellants appealed, citing hearsay evidence, material contradictions, and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer (IO).

1. Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer (IO) caused such prejudice to the defense as to vitiate the prosecution’s case.

2. Whether the evidence on record, primarily consisting of the victim's testimony and related witnesses, was sufficient to sustain a conviction despite the absence of independent witnesses and medical discrepancies.

The court applied Sections 323 (voluntary causing hurt), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 354 (assault/criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

It referred to Section 60 of the Evidence Act regarding the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence.

The court relied on the precedent in Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2001), which establishes that non-examination of the IO does not automatically vitiate a trial unless prejudice is proved.

Furthermore, it applied the principle from Gian Chand v. State of Haryana (2014), which states that the failure to join independent witnesses does not create reasonable doubt if the available evidence is otherwise cogent and reliable.

The Court scrutinized the testimonies of nine prosecution witnesses, noting that P.W.s 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 were largely hearsay witnesses with no direct knowledge of the assault.

It observed procedural and evidentiary weaknesses, including the fact that the medical report (Ex. X) was a photocopy and the doctor (P.W. 9) was not a specialist.

The Court also highlighted the informant's failure to seek medical attention during transit despite the victim’s alleged bleeding.

However, the Court identified the victim (P.W. 8) as the "star witness" whose testimony regarding the demand for dowry and physical assault remained substantive.

Applying the Ram Gulam Chaudhary standard, the Court found that the non-examination of the IO did not cause prejudice because the ocular evidence provided by the victim was deemed trustworthy.

Finally, the Court determined that the lack of independent witnesses was an expected social reality and, per Gian Chand, did not invalidate the credible testimony of the victim.

It held that the trial court did not err in its conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of sentence dated 12.07.2011 were sustained.

The Court directed that any period of detention already undergone be set off against the substantive sentence and ordered the appellants to be taken into custody forthwith.