Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal revision filed by Yogesh Gajanan Sayankar and Dhanraj Shalikrao Sayankar against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, dated 14.06.2018, in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2015. The applicants were originally acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wardha, in Regular Criminal Case No. 389 of 2012 for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution appealed against the acquittal, and the Sessions Judge set aside the acquittal, convicting both applicants under Section 326 IPC and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The facts of the case are that on 11.06.2012 at about 9:00 p.m., the complainant Ranjana Naresh Thote lodged a report alleging that her husband Naresh was abused by the accused. Accused Yogesh caught her husband, and accused Dhanraj beat him on the head and back with a wooden rod (ubhari), causing a head injury. The victim was taken to the hospital, and a crime was registered. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and nine witnesses were examined. The trial court acquitted the accused, but the appellate court reversed the acquittal. The High Court, in revision, examined the evidence, including the testimony of the complainant (PW-1), the victim (PW-2), and the doctor (PW-5), who proved the injury certificate (Exh. 28) showing a fracture. The High Court held that the appellate court had correctly reappreciated the evidence and found that the trial court's acquittal was perverse. The medical evidence corroborated the ocular testimony, and the weapon used (ubhari) was a dangerous weapon. The High Court dismissed the revision, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Grievous Hurt - Section 326 IPC - Appellate Court's Power to Reverse Acquittal - The appellate court can set aside an acquittal and convict the accused if the trial court's findings are perverse or based on misappreciation of evidence. In this case, the trial court's acquittal was reversed as the evidence of the complainant and medical testimony clearly established the offence. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence - Medical Evidence - Corroboration - The testimony of the doctor (PW-5) and the injury certificate (Exh. 28) proved that the victim sustained a grievous hurt (fracture) caused by a wooden rod (ubhari), which is a dangerous weapon. The medical evidence corroborated the ocular testimony of the complainant (PW-1) and her husband (PW-2). (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal Against Acquittal - The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, can reappreciate the evidence and if the trial court's view is not a possible view, the appellate court can reverse it. The Sessions Judge correctly reappreciated the evidence and convicted the accused. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the applicants under Section 326 IPC based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the conviction and sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 IPC.
Law Points
- Appellate court can reverse acquittal if findings are perverse
- Section 326 IPC requires intention to cause grievous hurt by dangerous weapon
- Reappreciation of evidence by appellate court is permissible when trial court's findings are unreasonable
