Simple injuries unsupported by weapon allegations justify substituting Section 308/149 IPC with Section 323/149 IPC.

On 8 April 2001, following a dispute concerning the overtaking or speed of a vehicle on the previous day, the appellants allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, entered the informant’s house armed with swords and rods, and assaulted Santosh Kumar Tiwari, the informant’s cousin.

An FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 114, 458, 341, 323, 324 and 307 of the IPC.

After trial, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 452/149 and 308/149 IPC and sentenced them to concurrent terms of imprisonment and fines.

In appeal, the appellants contended that the injuries were simple, that Section 308 IPC was not attracted, and that they had already undergone approximately one month’s custody in a case originating in 2001.

Whether the evidence established an offence under Section 308/149 IPC, or whether the appellants’ liability was limited to voluntarily causing simple hurt under Section 323/149 IPC?

Whether the convictions under Sections 147, 148 and 452/149 IPC were sustainable on the evidence that the appellants, as an unlawful assembly, entered the informant’s house?

Whether, having regard to the period already undergone, the age of the case, and the circumstances of the parties, the sentence required reduction or modification?

The Court applied Section 308 IPC, which requires proof of an act done with such intention or knowledge, and in such circumstances, that if death had been caused, the act would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder; Section 323 IPC, which penalises voluntarily causing hurt; Sections 147 and 148 IPC concerning rioting and rioting while armed with a deadly weapon; Section 452 IPC concerning house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint; and Section 149 IPC, which attributes liability to every member of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in prosecution of its common object.

The Court assessed the medical evidence to determine whether the alleged assault disclosed the requisite intention or knowledge under Section 308 IPC.

It also applied the sentencing principle that the period already undergone, the age of the occurrence, the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, and the overall circumstances may justify modification of sentence.

The Court relied principally on the evidence of PW-1, Dr. Nilanjan Roy, and the injury report.

The injuries were found to be simple, caused by a hard and blunt substance, and capable of having been sustained through an accidental fall during a scuffle.

The alleged use of sharp weapons such as swords was not medically corroborated, and the alleged eye injury was attributed to conjunctivitis with muco-purulent discharge rather than assault.

Consequently, the medical evidence did not establish the intention or knowledge necessary for Section 308 IPC, and the conviction under that provision was altered to Section 323/149 IPC.

However, the Court accepted the prosecution case that the appellants, as members of an unlawful assembly, entered the informant’s house, thereby sustaining the convictions under Sections 147, 148 and 452/149 IPC.

For sentencing, the Court considered that the occurrence was more than two decades old, the appellants had already remained in custody for nearly one month, and the fine imposed had been received by the injured.

The conviction under Section 308/149 IPC was set aside and substituted with conviction under Section 323/149 IPC.

The convictions under Sections 147, 148 and 452/149 IPC were upheld.

The sentences for all the offences were reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone, with the appellants treated as having been sufficiently punished.

As the appellants were on bail, they were discharged from their bail bonds and their sureties were released.