IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that for a conviction under Section 325 IPC, the prosecution must strictly prove the nature of injuries as defined in Section 320 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.03.2011 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No.10 of 2005 (Sessions Serial No.538 of 2005) which was pending before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Murshidabad, arising out of Jalangi Police Station Case No.147/2001 dated 12.01.2001, thereby convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for one year.

2. Jalangi P.S. Case No.147/2001 dated 12.01.2011 under Sections 325/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation on the basis of a written complaint lodged by one Iti Sarkar PW-1 (de facto complainant).

3. The prosecution case precisely stated:-

On 12.01.2001 at about 06:30 A.M. in front of the house of Basudeb Sarkar (victim), the appellant along with others namely Arun Kundu and Asit Kundu assaulted the victim with iron rod and ‘harpa’ and one Bapi Kundu stood there with a gun. As a result of such assault, the victim received severe bodily injuries.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint police took up investigation.

5. On completion of the investigation of the case, investigating agency submitted charge-sheet against the present appellant and other co-accused persons under Sections 325/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Charge under Sections 307/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the present appellant and others to which they pleaded to be not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. During the pendency of the instant case, Arun Kundu and Asit Kundu expired and the case was filed against them. The appellant herein and Bapi Kundu faced the trial.

8. The prosecution cited 9 witnesses and exhibited certain documents.

9. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted as follows:-

i. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffered from gross contradictions and/or embellishments and the same was rendered highly unreliable in nature and ought not to have formed the basis of conviction in the instant case.

ii. The deposition of the prosecution witnesses did not establish the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

iii. From the evidence on record, two complaints appeared to have been made to the police authorities; the first one being lodged by the cousin of the victim but the instant case appeared to have been initiated on the basis of the second complaint lodged by the PW-1; the first complaint was never produced before the Learned Trial Court and there were gross contradictions between the versions in the two complaints and it appeared that several embellishments were made in the second complaint as a result of after-thought, informant had failed to explain the same and having regard to the above, chance of cooking up a concocted story could not have been ruled out.

iv. It also transpired from materials on record that the police authorities had already started investigation and visited the place of occurrence before the First Information Report was drawn up in the instant cast which itself cast severe doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case.

v. There were severe discrepancies in the injury report of the victim inasmuch as the type of injuries described in the injury report could not have been inflicted by ‘harpa’ and/or iron rod.

vi. The injury report there was no recording of the name of the assailants as stated by the alleged victims and the same was highly improbable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

vii. The medical evidence and ocular evidence were mutually contradictory to each other, the mode of inflicting injuries as stated by the witnesses were not supported by the evidence of the doctors.

viii. The nature of injuries found on the person of the victim by the doctor