Non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal where injured testimony is medically corroborated.

On 27 November 1993, a dispute arose when the accused persons allegedly placed palani on land belonging to the informant’s family. During the ensuing altercation, co-accused persons allegedly assaulted the informant and others, while the appellant, Brij Kishore Rai, allegedly inflicted a knife (chhura) blow on Prem Chand Rai’s thigh when he intervened.

Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 72 of 1993 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 323, 341 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation and commitment, the matter proceeded as Sessions Trial No. 354 of 1998/Trial No. 433 of 2017.

The prosecution examined five witnesses, including the injured witness, the informant and the doctor, and produced the relevant injury reports.

The trial court acquitted the co-accused but convicted the appellant under Section 324 IPC and released him on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, subject to execution of a bond for maintaining peace and good behaviour.

The appellant challenged both the conviction and the findings supporting it, relying principally on prior land-related enmity, non-examination of the Investigating Officer and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence.

Whether the appellant’s conviction under Section 324 IPC was sustainable despite the alleged discrepancies in the prosecution evidence and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer?

Whether the testimony of the injured witness, corroborated by the medical evidence, sufficiently established that the appellant inflicted the stab injury?

Whether the appellant was entitled to retain the benefit of release on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958?

The Court applied Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon or means; the prosecution was required to establish the specific assault attributed to the appellant.

It also applied the evidentiary principle that the credible testimony of an injured witness carries substantial weight, particularly when materially corroborated by medical evidence.

The non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not by itself fatal where the substantive evidence reliably proves the accused’s specific role and no material prejudice is demonstrated.

The Court further applied Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, permitting release of an offender on probation of good conduct after consideration of the nature of the offence and the offender’s circumstances.

The Court found that P.W. 1, the injured witness, gave a specific account of the appellant’s infliction of a stab injury on his thigh. This evidence was corroborated by P.W. 5, the medical officer, who found a bleeding stab wound caused by a sharp-cutting instrument.

The appellant’s distinct overt act was therefore materially different from the allegations against the other co-accused, who were acquitted because of medical and evidentiary discrepancies.

Although the Investigating Officer was not examined and the parties had longstanding land-related enmity, the Court held that these circumstances did not outweigh the reliable injured-witness testimony and medical corroboration, nor did they establish prejudice to the defence.

Considering the appellant’s advanced age, first-offender status and the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, the Court also found that the grant of probation was appropriate.

It also upheld the trial court’s order releasing him on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The appellant was discharged from liability under the bail bonds, subject to the terms of the probation bond executed before the trial court.

The appeal and any pending interlocutory applications were accordingly disposed of.