Voluntary Assault Resulting in Bone Fracture Constitutes Grievous Hurt Notwithstanding Discrepancies in Non-Essential Witnesses

The Appellant was accused of assaulting PW-2 (Narayan Biswas), a 65-year-old man, on 11.01.2005.

The dispute arose when the victim's buffalo strayed into the Appellant’s field. Despite an apology, the Appellant pushed the victim and struck him with the blunt reverse side of a spade, causing a severe fracture to the left leg.

The written complaint (FIR) was filed on 10.02.2005, reflecting a delay of one month.

The trial court convicted the Appellant under Section 325 of the IPC (Grievous Hurt) and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment.

The Appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of inordinate delay in FIR, lack of weapon seizure, and the possibility of injury occurring due to an accidental fall.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the act of voluntarily causing "grievous hurt" beyond reasonable doubt despite the defection of independent witnesses and delay in FIR.

2. Whether the medical evidence regarding the femoral fracture supported the oral testimony of assault or the defense theory of an accidental fall.

3. Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the passage of 18 years and the spontaneous nature of the dispute.

Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code regarding the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

Section 320 (Seventhly) of the IPC, which defines "grievous hurt" to include the fracture or dislocation of a bone.

The principle of "sifting the grain from the chaff," allowing for conviction based on credible ocular and medical evidence even when certain independent witnesses turn hostile.

Mitigatory principles regarding sentencing in long-pending matters.

The court found the testimonies of PW-1 (informant) and PW-2 (victim) to be "organically consistent".

The court rejected the defense's argument regarding the one-month delay in the FIR, focusing instead on the verified medical trauma.

Although several neighbors (PW-3, 4, 8, 9, 10) turned hostile, the court held that the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 (neighboring cultivators) sufficiently corroborated the assault.

The court utilized the medical jurisprudence of PW-5, PW-11 (Orthopedic Surgeon), and PW-13 (Radiologist), who confirmed a "pertrochanteric fracture of the neck of the left femur".

The court reasoned that while a fall could theoretically cause such an injury, the medical findings "perfectly mirror" the mechanical force of a blunt spade strike described by the witnesses.

Clerical errors in the charge-sheet regarding the time of occurrence were dismissed as "routine blemishes" of rustic investigations that did not prejudice the defense.

The substantive sentence of 3 years' rigorous imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone by the Appellant during the investigation and trial.

The appeal was dismissed with the aforementioned modification of the sentence.