Independent witness testimony can establish guilt in assault cases, irrespective of medical evidence or the number of witnesses.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE ON THE 2^nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 723 of 2014 VINOD SHARMA Versus SUNEEL SHRIVASTAVA Appearance:

Shri S.S. Rajput - Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondent.

ORDER Under the first criminal revision, Sections 367 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were invoked against the order dated 30-06-2014 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guna (Shri P. C. Gupta) in Criminal Appeal No. 260/2012, whereby the conviction and sentence order dated 05-12-2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna (Ku. Charulata Dangi) in Criminal Case No. 1733/2010 was set aside.

Short facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent filed a complaint under Sections 323, 294, and 392 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Guna to the effect that he was working as Assistant Manager at the Trade and Industry Centre, Guna, while the accused was employed as a driver. For the past five years, the petitioner had been harboring enmity against the complainant without reason and was always inclined to assault him.

Signature Not Verified On 04.05.2009, at about 1:00 p.m., the complainant was summoned by the General Manager to his chamber for official work. As the complainant was proceeding to the chamber, the accused abused him in filthy language, caught hold of him, assaulted him with kicks and fists, tore his clothes and shoes, and snatched a gold chain from his neck along with ₹500 in cash. Pappu, Komal Singh, Iqbal, Ramchandra Goswami, and Gajraj Singh, who witnessed the incident, intervened and rescued the complainant. The complainant submitted a written report to the police, was admitted for treatment, and was discharged on 05.05.2009. However, the police took no action against the accused, stating that though the complainant had received treatment, the doctor had not prepared MLC (Medico-Legal Certificate).

On 11.05.2009, the complainant submitted an application to the Cantt.

Police Station seeking action against the accused, but even then no action was taken. Consequently, the complainant was compelled to file this complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, the Magistrate tried the accused under Section 323 of the IPC.

After considering all the evidence, the Magistrate convicted/sentenced the appellant/accused vide judgment dated 28.05.2012. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, Criminal Appeal No.260 of 2012 has been filed by the respondent which was allowed and he was acquitted of the charge under Section 323 of IPC. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present criminal revision. Signature Not Verified Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the impugned order passed by the Learned Lower Appellate Court, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted, is contrary to the evidence available on record and settled principles of law. The judgment suffers from serious legal infirmities and is liable to be set aside.

It is further submitted that the Learned Lower Appellate Court gravely erred in holding that since no employee of the complainant’s office was examined, the complaint appeared doubtful. The testimony of independent witnesses Komal Singh (PW-102) and Pappu Singh (PW-503) fully corroborates the case of the complainant and clearly establishes that the respondent assaulted the applicant. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of this very evidence, rightly convicted the respondent. It is settled law that once credible independent evidence is available, non-examination of other formal witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case. In support of the above argument, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of U.P. v. Naresh , (2011) 4 SCC 324 , wherein it was held that “non-examination of some witnesses does not by itself render the prosecution case doubtful, so long as the evidence on record inspires