Legal Victory in Grievous Hurt Case: Court Overturns Conviction Amid Evidence Gap.


20 December 2024 Criminal Trial >> Criminal Law   |   Evidence >> Criminal Law   |   FIR >> Criminal Law  

The case in question revolves around a Criminal Revision Application (CRA) in the matter of Nisar Abdul Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra & Another challenging the two concurrent judgments delivered by the learned Trial Court on October 13, 2014, and the Appellate Court on August 6, 2024. The Revision Applicant, convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 3,000, and an alternative punishment of two months' imprisonment in case of default in payment.

The case began when a dispute occurred between the victim and the applicant over drawing water from a common family well for agricultural purposes on April 17, 2010. During the dispute, an altercation between the parties escalated into violence. The victim's wife was slapped by one of the accused, leading to the victim's intervention. The situation worsened when Accused No.1 (the applicant) arrived at the scene, allegedly armed with an iron rod, and inflicted a blow to the victim's head. The victim suffered significant head injuries, prompting the wife to file a First Information Report (FIR) against four family members, including the applicant.

 
 

Despite the acquittal of the other accused, the applicant was convicted under Section 326 of the IPC for causing grievous hurt. This conviction was upheld by the Appellate Court. The revision application in question challenges both of these judgments, arguing that the conviction is not supported by sufficient and reliable evidence.

The core of the revision application stems from the defense that the charge of grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC was unfounded. The defense, represented by Mr. Chandanshiv, argued that the prosecution’s case was fraught with inconsistencies, primarily due to the lack of recovery of the weapon (the iron rod), the absence of independent corroborative witnesses, and the victim's own ambiguous statements. The applicant’s legal team further argued that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment due to a verbal altercation and was not a premeditated act of violence. They suggested that the injury might have been caused by a fall, not by an iron rod.

Additionally, it was brought to the court’s attention that the victim and the applicant, who were close relatives, had resolved the dispute amicably. The victim filed an affidavit confirming the settlement and expressed no objection to the compounding of the offense. However, Section 326 IPC is a non-compoundable offense, and thus, the compounding of the case was not possible in the traditional sense.
The medical evidence presented in the case was also scrutinized. The treating doctor’s testimony revealed that the victim had sustained a head injury, which could have been caused by a variety of incidents, including falling on a hard surface. The absence of an X-ray or CT scan report further weakened the case. The medical evidence did not conclusively establish that the injury was caused by an iron rod, as the prosecution claimed.

Crucially, independent witness testimony contradicted the prosecution's case. PW-3, an eyewitness who intervened during the quarrel, stated that the applicant did not use an iron rod to injure the victim. This statement was consistent with the victim’s own admission in cross-examination, where he denied being struck by an iron rod. The failure of the prosecution to establish a clear and consistent case against the applicant, combined with the lack of independent corroboration, led to doubts about the conviction.

In light of the discrepancies in the evidence, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Both the Trial Court and Appellate Court had erred in their conclusions, and their judgments were quashed. The Criminal Revision Application was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.
The Court also ordered the immediate release of the applicant, who was in custody, and directed the concerned jail authorities to release him. Furthermore, the fine amount deposited by the applicant was ordered to be refunded.

This case highlights the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in criminal proceedings. It also underscores the role of independent witnesses in providing a balanced perspective on events. The judgment serves as a reminder that convictions in criminal cases must be supported by concrete evidence rather than relying solely on medical findings or the severity of the injury.

Conclusion:

The Criminal Revision Application in this case ultimately resulted in the quashing of the conviction due to critical inconsistencies in the evidence. The amicable settlement between the parties, the contradictions in witness testimonies, and the absence of corroborative evidence led to a favorable outcome for the applicant.


Section 326., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860