The court upheld acquittal for lack of mens rea in serious charges, affirming validity of trial court's reasoning amidst spontaneous altercation.

Judgment

11/07/2025

1. This criminal appeal has been instituted under Section 372 Cr.P.C. by the appellant—injured/complainant—assailing the judgment dated 13.04.2023 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.17/2018, whereby the accused respondents were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 308 IPC, though convicted under Sections 148 , 341/149, 323/149, and 325/149 IPC.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire trial court record.

3. The genesis of the prosecution case lies in a parcha bayan given by the injured-Praveen Nokhwal, while he was undergoing treatment in the Male Orthopaedic Ward of the Govt. Hospital, Sri Ganganagar. The complainant alleged that on 08.01.2018, at around 4:30 PM, while returning from duty and upon reaching the vicinity of Mahila Park, he was waylaid and assaulted by the accused respondents, who were purportedly armed with a country-made firearm (desi katta), iron rods, hockey sticks, and wooden lathis. It was further asserted that respondent Sameer attempted to discharge a firearm at him with an intent to cause fatal injury, which ultimately did not materialize due to timely intervention by bystanders.

3.1. On the basis of the said information, an FIR came to be registered for offences under Sections 308 , 341, 323, and 143 IPC. During investigation, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

was filed and allowed, summoning Bilal Khan as an additional accused.

3.2. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 323 , 325, 341, 307, 147, 148, and 149 IPC. Upon framing of charges, the trial court proceeded against the accused under Sections 308 , 341, 323, 325, 147, 148, and 149 IPC. The accused denied all charges and claimed trial.

3.3. The prosecution examined 25 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents to substantiate its allegations. The defence, however, relied on a solitary document, Ex.D/1—the statement of one Mukesh.

3.4. After a full-fledged trial and consideration of final arguments, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 13.04.2023, convicted the respondents for offences under Sections 148 , 341/149, 323/149, and 325/149 IPC, while acquitting them of charges under Sections 147 and 308 read with Section 149 IPC. aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

4. The primary grievance of the appellant is that the learned trial court erred in acquitting the respondents of the charges under Sections 147 and 308 IPC, despite overwhelming oral and medical evidence. However, upon meticulous reappraisal of the material on record, this Court couldn’t find fault with the reasoning employed by the learned trial court.

5. A perusal of the testimony of PW-20 Neeraj Goswami clearly establishes that the injuries suffered by the complainant— although consisting of a wrist fracture and injury to the fifth finger —were neither grievous in nature nor dangerous to life. This stands corroborated by PW-23, Dr. Ravi Bhagat, who unequivocally testified that the said injuries did not affect any vital organ or pose a threat to the life of the victim.

5.1. It is well settled in law that for an offence under Section 308 IPC to stand proved, the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused had committed an act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that if death had ensued, the act would have amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The requisite mens rea is sine qua non for attracting Section 308 IPC. The record, in the present case, is bereft of any cr