Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Jijabai Baban Hirnaik, filed a criminal revision application challenging the acquittal of respondents 1 to 4 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Dadar, Mumbai, for an offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from a complaint lodged by the petitioner at Wadala Police Station alleging that the respondents assaulted her and her husband. The investigating officer recorded statements and filed a charge-sheet. The prosecution relied on the petitioner's statement and medical evidence. However, the trial court acquitted the respondents, finding the evidence insufficient to prove grievous hurt. The High Court, in revision, examined the record and found that the medical evidence did not support the allegation of grievous hurt, as the injuries were simple. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court's order of acquittal was correct. The revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Grievous Hurt - Section 326 IPC - Acquittal - The complainant alleged assault causing grievous hurt, but medical evidence showed only simple injuries - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 326 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court's acquittal was proper (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents under Section 326 read with Section 114 IPC was justified given the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application and upheld the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Dadar, Mumbai.
Law Points
- Section 326 IPC requires grievous hurt
- medical evidence must corroborate grievous hurt
- acquittal upheld if prosecution fails to prove case beyond reasonable doubt
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (09) 82
Criminal Revision Application No.315 of 1996
Mr. P.R. Naidu for the petitioner, Mrs. Suvarna Telgote for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Ms. S.V. Gajare, APP for the State
Smt. Jijabai Baban Hirnaik
Shri Santosh Govind Tari, Shri Anant Govind Tari, Shri Sashikant Dattaram Malgaonkar, Smt. Surekha Santosh Tari, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application challenging acquittal
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought reversal of acquittal of respondents under Section 326 read with Section 114 IPC
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that respondents assaulted her and her husband, causing grievous hurt
Previous Decisions
Trial court acquitted respondents of offence under Section 326 read with Section 114 IPC
Issues
Whether the acquittal of the respondents under Section 326 read with Section 114 IPC was justified given the evidence on record.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents despite evidence of assault.
Respondents argued that the medical evidence did not support grievous hurt and the prosecution failed to prove its case.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 326 IPC beyond reasonable doubt as the medical evidence showed only simple injuries, not grievous hurt.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Criminal Revision Application, the original complainant has challenged the order of acquittal which is passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Dadar, Mumbai whereby the respondents / accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under section 326 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Procedural History
The petitioner lodged a complaint at Wadala Police Station. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The trial court acquitted the respondents. The petitioner filed a criminal revision application in the High Court challenging the acquittal.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code: 326, 114
