Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2906

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Kaptan (deceased) and others - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1240 of 1989
Decided on : 26-09-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Tej Pal, Amrendu Pal, Rahul Saxena, S.P. Singh, V.K. Rastogi
For the Respondent: A.G.A.

The conviction under grievous assault was overturned as injuries did not meet statutory criteria, affirming that non-examination of independent witnesses does not invalidate credible direct evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 324, and 326 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Conviction and sentencing affirmed under Sections 323 and 324 IPC, while acquitted from charge under Section 326 IPC - Co-defendants challenged conviction claiming injuries unaccounted for - Prosecution withheld evidence from independent witnesses, but testimony of injured witnesses deemed reliable - Court concluded the injuries did not qualify as grievous, impacting conviction under Section 326 IPC. (Paras 20, 35, 46)

(B) Criminal Law - Principles of Evidence - Withholding independent witnesses' testimony does not render prosecution's case void if direct evidence exists - Conviction can be upheld on basis of credible evidence from injured parties. (Paras 33, 34)

Facts of the case:
A conflict arose over a window allegedly infringing on a neighboring property’s privacy, leading to injuries on the complainant and his family, with the defendants allegedly using weapons.

Findings of Court:
The court emphasized the absence of grievous injuries negating higher charges, allowing a probationary sentence considering the case's longevity.

Issues: The court addressed whether the injuries caused were grievous and the implications of withholding witness testimonies.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that grievous injury assessments must adhere to statutory definitions, with non-examination of independent witnesses not fatally undermining the prosecution's credibility.

Result: Revision partly allowed; convictions upheld under Sections 323 and 324 IPC; release on probation granted to the accused.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The case involves a revision against a judgment that convicted the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, primarily related to assault and hurt, with specific focus on whether injuries qualify as grievous and the credibility of witnesses (!) (!) .
The incident stemmed from a land dispute, which escalated into a physical altercation involving weapons, resulting in injuries to the complainant and his family members. The injuries were examined and documented, with some injuries classified as simple and others as potentially grievous, depending on their nature and cause (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The prosecution relied on direct evidence from injured witnesses, even though independent witnesses were not examined. The court recognized that withholding independent witness testimony does not necessarily invalidate credible direct evidence from injured parties (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court examined the injuries in detail, particularly focusing on whether any injuries were grievous as defined by law. It was found that one injury, caused by a sharp weapon, initially appeared grievous but, upon closer analysis, did not meet the criteria for grievous hurt because it lacked permanent disfigurement or other severe consequences (!) (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the injuries caused by blunt objects were simple and that the injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons did not qualify as grievous hurt under the law, especially considering the absence of permanent disfigurement. Therefore, charges under sections related to grievous hurt were not sustainable (!) (!) .
Based on these findings, the court concluded that the case did not fall under the section for grievous hurt but rather under sections related to causing hurt with or without dangerous weapons. Consequently, the conviction under the section for grievous hurt was set aside, and the case was reclassified accordingly (!) .
The court also considered the long passage of time since the incident and the age of the accused, who had become senior citizens. It found that the purpose of imprisonment had been served and that the accused could be released on probation, provided they maintain good conduct and execute bonds and sureties (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the accused had no prior criminal record and that their release on probation would serve the interests of justice, especially given the elapsed time and their age (!) .
The revision was partly allowed: the conviction under the section for grievous hurt was overturned, and the accused were convicted under sections related to causing hurt without grievousness. They were released on probation for a specified period, with conditions to ensure good behavior (!) (!) .
The order was to be communicated to the relevant authorities for implementation, including the preparation of bonds and undertaking by the accused (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.

Table of Content
1. overview of the incident and injuries. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
2. arguments regarding injuries and witness testimonies. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 16 , 24 , 35)
3. testimonies regarding injuries and defense arguments. (Para 25)
4. court's analysis on evidence and implications. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 42)
5. legal principles regarding conviction and sentencing. (Para 41 , 44 , 47)
6. final conclusions regarding probation and sentencing. (Para 45)
7. conclusion on probation and order for compliance. (Para 46 , 48 , 49)

JUDGMENT :

Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

1. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the judgment and order dated 25.07.1989 passed by IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 1988 (Kaptan and others Vs. State) and also against the judgment and order of conviction and sentencing dated 04.02.1988 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in Criminal Case No.2408 of 1984 ( State Vs. Kaptan and others ), Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit.

2. At this stage, it is mentioned that revisionist no.1, Kaptan has died and this criminal revision survives only in respect of revisionist nos.2, 3 and 4 namely Ram Din, Ram Ratan and Ram Bir.

3. The revisionists have taken ground that the convict Kaptan had also received injuries and the same are not explained either in FIR or in the statement under Section 161 CrPC. The origin of fight is not clear. Thus, the defence version is to be accepted in view of the judgment

4. The prosecution has examined PW-1, Lala Ram; PW2, Ram Sahay and PW-3, Ram Kumar, the independent witnesses have been withheld by the prosecution. Hence, the adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution.

5. PW-3, Ram Kumar has stated that the revisionist no.1, Kaptan was armed with lathi and there is conflict between the medical and the oral evidence. Hence, accused are liable to be acquitted in view of the judgment of Awadhesh and another Vs. State of MP , 1988 CrLJ 1158 (SC). The material evidence has not been put to the accused which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. The revisionists are entitled for probation in view of the judgment passed in Hari Kishan and another Vs. Sukhbir Singh and others , 1989 CrLJ 116 (SC), since no offence is made out against the revisionists, hence, the revision be allowed and the order of conviction be set aside.

6. In brief, facts of the case are that on 27.08.1984 at about 07:00 a.m. when Lala Ram resident of Village Daulatpur Khera, Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit was going from his house for school, accused Kaptan with kanta, Ram Din, Ram Bir and Ram Ratan with sticks met to him and asked the informant that he would not shut the window and started beating him. Hearing the commotion, when his wife Ramwati, daughter Jamyant Kumari and his brother Ram Sahay came to rescue him, they were also beaten by the accused persons. After hearing the hue and cry, two villagers namely, Ram Kumar and Jhankar Singh also reached there and accused persons ran away from there. According to the informant, he had opened a window about which accused persons had objection that by this window privacy of their house is infringed, he was asked to shut the window, but the informant had refused to do the same, therefore, accused persons had enmity with him.

7. On the basis of above written complaint (Ex.Ka-1), Chik FIR (Ex.Ka-10) was registered and entered in General Diary (Ex.Ka-11). The injured were medically examined by Dr. S.S Sharma.

8. The medical examination of Jamyant Kumari is Ex.Ka-2, according to which, she had received injuries on her person which are; (i) contusion of 15cm x 2.5cm on pesterolatral aspect of left hand starting 5cm below elbow and running vertically; (ii) penetrating incised wound of 0.5cm x 0.5cm x fascia deep on posterior aspect of left forearm 1.5cm superior to wrist joint, all the injuries were fresh and simple, injury no.(i) wa