Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Polash Kartik Mandal, was convicted by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Thane, under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon, and sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000. The case arose from an incident on 4 January 2012, where the informant, Mohd. Javed Isak Shaikh, alleged that the appellant, along with two others, assaulted him with a knife, causing a fracture to his left hand. The prosecution's case was that the appellant instigated one Dhananjay to assault the informant, and the appellant himself used a knife. However, the medical evidence presented by the doctor (PW-2) contradicted this: the doctor testified that the injury was a simple fracture caused by a blunt object, not a sharp-cutting weapon like a knife. The doctor also stated that the injury did not fall under the definition of grievous hurt as per Section 320 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant, but the Bombay High Court, on appeal, found the evidence inconsistent. The court noted that the informant's testimony about the use of a knife was not supported by medical evidence, and the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant caused grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon. The court also observed that the appellant had been granted bail in 2014 but remained in custody due to procedural lapses. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant, giving him the benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Weapon - Section 326 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on inconsistent evidence - The appellant was convicted under Section 326 IPC for allegedly assaulting the informant with a knife, causing grievous hurt. The medical evidence showed a simple injury caused by a blunt object, not a sharp-cutting weapon as alleged. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 326 IPC, and the conviction was unsustainable. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistency between Ocular and Medical Evidence - Benefit of Doubt - The informant claimed the appellant used a knife, but the doctor opined the injury was caused by a blunt object. The court held that such inconsistency creates reasonable doubt, and the accused is entitled to acquittal. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable when the medical evidence does not support the prosecution's case regarding the weapon used and the nature of the injury
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Section 326 IPC requires proof of grievous hurt caused by a dangerous weapon
- medical evidence must corroborate the nature of the weapon
- inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence leads to benefit of doubt
