The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that conviction under grievous hurt provisions requires unequivocal proof of the accused’s exclusive role in inflicting injury. Where multiple parties are involved, conflicting testimonies, and failure to establish who delivered the fatal blow, the benefit of doubt must favor the accused.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a long-standing land conflict between the petitioner, Baneshwar Mahato, and the opposite party, Bishnupada Mahato, over the felling of bamboo trees on contested land. On 8 August 1990, an altercation erupted when Bishnupada Mahato objected to tree-cutting activity by a group including the petitioner. During the confrontation, Bishnupada sustained a grievous injury to his right thumb, which was later amputated.
Procedural History
- 1990: Purulia Police Station Case No.204/90 registered against 9 accused, including the petitioner, under Sections 326, 148, and 149 IPC.
- 1992: Charges framed against all accused under Sections 326/149 and 324/149 IPC.
- 1996: Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 148 read with Section 236 IPC and Section 326 IPC, sentencing him to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. All other co-accused were acquitted.
- 2000: Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the petitioner’s conviction while acquitting the other eight accused.
- 2026: Petitioner filed criminal revision before the Calcutta High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of his conviction and sentence, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he alone inflicted the grievous injury to the right thumb.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 326 IPC can be invoked against an accused when the prosecution’s evidence is inconsistent, multiple individuals are armed with similar weapons, and the victim’s own testimony fails to exclusively attribute the injury to the petitioner.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the prosecution’s case was riddled with contradictions. PW-1 and PW-2, sisters of the victim, gave conflicting versions of which hand was injured - left in police statement, right in court. PW-3, the victim, named both the petitioner and Deben Mahato as assailants, yet the medical evidence did not distinguish between injuries caused by either. Crucially, the victim did not identify the petitioner as the sole assailant to the doctor or the investigating officer. The defense relied on State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar to argue that where two or more persons are involved and the injury cannot be attributed exclusively, the benefit of doubt must apply.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the cumulative testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4, along with the medical report, established a clear chain of events implicating the petitioner. It argued that the victim’s identification of the petitioner in court, despite minor inconsistencies, was sufficient for conviction under Section 326 IPC, especially since the injury was grievous and the weapon was deadly.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of witness testimonies and medical evidence. It noted that PW-3, the victim, stated in court that both the petitioner and Deben Mahato assaulted him with a farsa - one on the right thumb, the other on the left hand. Yet, in his statement to the doctor (PW-4), he named four individuals without distinguishing roles. The doctor, in turn, admitted he did not examine the injury before amputation and did not bring the injury register to court.
"The evidence of PW-3 is dichotomous wherein he had named the petitioner and Deben Mahato, both to have caused physical assault on his body. If Deben Mahato had really inflicted injury on PW-3 it should have been bodily manifested in severity, being hit by a farsa, a sharp weapon."
The Court further observed that the Investigating Officer (PW-6) never examined the victim before filing the charge sheet, and the police complaint did not mention the thumb being "almost chopped off" - a detail only introduced in court. The defense produced medical evidence of severe injuries sustained by co-accused Jyoti Mahato, which the prosecution deliberately suppressed.
The Court emphasized that Section 326 IPC requires proof that the accused personally inflicted the grievous injury. Where the evidence is equivocal and multiple persons are involved, the prosecution must establish exclusive culpability. The failure to do so, especially when the victim’s own account is internally inconsistent and uncorroborated by contemporaneous documentation, renders the conviction unsustainable.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner exclusively inflicted the grievous injury to the right thumb. The conviction under Section 326 IPC was set aside, and the sentence was quashed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Exclusive Attribution Is Mandatory for Section 326 IPC
- Practitioners must ensure that in cases involving multiple accused, the prosecution establishes which individual caused which injury.
- Mere presence or general participation in a scuffle is insufficient for conviction under grievous hurt provisions.
- Courts will not infer exclusive causation from collective violence unless the evidence is unambiguous.
Inconsistencies Between Police Statement and Court Testimony Are Fatal
- If a victim’s initial statement to police or doctor omits naming a specific accused, subsequent court testimony naming that accused must be rigorously tested.
- Such discrepancies, especially when unexplained, trigger the benefit of doubt under Section 101 of the Evidence Act.
- Defense counsel should highlight these contradictions during cross-examination and in final arguments.
Medical Evidence Must Corroborate, Not Contradict, Witness Accounts
- Doctors must be questioned on whether they recorded the victim’s version of injury causation at the time of treatment.
- If the medical report does not distinguish between injuries from different weapons or assailants, it cannot serve as independent corroboration.
- Failure to produce injury registers or original X-rays undermines the prosecution’s credibility.
