Uncorroborated Testimony of Injured Witness is Doubtful; Conviction under S.323 IPC Set Aside: Gujarat High Court - 2025-08-27

Gujarat High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Assault, Citing Contradictory Evidence and Unreliable Testimony

Ahmedabad, Gujarat – In a significant ruling on the appreciation of evidence, the Gujarat High Court has acquitted Ganpatbhai Manjibhai Patel, overturning a 2004 Sessions Court conviction for voluntarily causing hurt. Justice Gita Gopi held that the testimony of the injured complainant was "shrouded with suspicion" and could not be relied upon in the absence of corroboration, especially when the sole eyewitness provided a completely different version of events.

The court also dismissed a revision application filed by the complainant seeking to convict the accused's acquitted wife and enhance the charges to attempt to murder.

A Tale of Two Proceedings: The Appeal and the Revision

The case stemmed from an incident on October 8, 1998, where the complainant, Manharbhai Maujibhai Patel, alleged he was attacked with an iron pipe by Ganpatbhai and his wife, Gauriben. The purported motive was the complainant's alleged relationship with the couple's daughter.

Following a trial, the Sessions Court in Morbi convicted Ganpatbhai under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing simple hurt but acquitted his wife, Gauriben, of all charges, including the serious charge of attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC).

This led to two separate proceedings before the High Court: 1. Criminal Appeal No. 1638 of 2004: Filed by Ganpatbhai challenging his conviction. 2. Criminal Revision Application No. 814 of 2004: Filed by the complainant challenging Gauriben's acquittal and seeking a conviction for a more severe offence.

Court Rejects Complainant's Revision Application

Justice Gopi first addressed the revision application filed by the complainant. The court found it non-maintainable, citing clear statutory bars. Relying on Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the judgment highlighted that a High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, is explicitly prohibited from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.

The court noted:

"Sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. does not authorise the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction under revisional jurisdiction... Sub-section (4) further clarifies that when appeal lies and no appeal is brought then the revision petition shall not be entertained at the instance of the parties, who could have appealed."

Given these restrictions, the complainant's revision application was rejected at the outset.

Analysis of Evidence: A Case Riddled with Doubt

The court then turned to Ganpatbhai's appeal, meticulously re-examining the evidence presented during the trial. The prosecution's case collapsed under scrutiny for several reasons:

• Hostile Eyewitness: The most crucial blow to the prosecution's story came from the sole eyewitness, Kantilal Karsanbhai Patel (P.W.10), who was with the complainant during the incident. He flatly denied seeing the accused attack the complainant. Instead, he testified that the complainant sustained injuries after slipping and falling on stones while they were running away from village women whom the complainant had allegedly harassed.

• Lack of Corroboration: No other evidence supported the complainant's version.

  • The iron pipe , allegedly the weapon of offence, was found to have no bloodstains on it, as per the forensic report.
  • Panch witnesses for the recovery of the weapon and the scene of the crime turned hostile, refusing to support the police's version of events.
  • The complainant’s own mother testified that when her injured son returned home, he did not initially say who had attacked him.

• Doubtful Testimony of Complainant: The court found the complainant's testimony unreliable. His failure to immediately name his assailants, coupled with the eyewitness's contradictory account and his own questionable character (he was facing complaints of kidnapping and assault), rendered his evidence doubtful.

Pivotal Observations from the Judgment

Justice Gopi pointed out the glaring inconsistency in the trial court's decision, noting that the same evidence used to acquit the wife was used to convict the husband. The judgment emphasized:

"The challenge has been given to such an observation of the learned Trial Court Judge. The complainant, as an injured witness cannot be believed, since the eye witness Kantilal Karsanbhai Patel (P.W.10), who was along with him had not supported the complainant... The same evidence, which was for the acquitted wife was available on record for the convicted appellant."

Concluding that the prosecution's case was far from proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the court stated:

"In absence of corroborative evidence, the complainant version cannot be believed, as his testimony is shrouded with suspicion... When the testimony remain uncorroborated and when both the witnesses, the complainant and eye witness (P.W.10), have two different versions to say, the prosecution case becomes doubtful."

Final Verdict

Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court. Ganpatbhai Manjibhai Patel was acquitted of all charges, bringing a two-decade-long legal battle to a close.