The Bombay High Court has granted leave to appeal against an acquittal in a case involving grievous hurt under the Indian Penal Code, affirming that corroborated eyewitness testimony and uncontroverted medical evidence of serious injury constitute sufficient grounds for appellate intervention. This ruling reinforces the principle that acquittals based on erroneous appreciation of credible evidence may be revisited.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The State of Maharashtra seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, acquitting the respondents of charges under Sections 324, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from a violent assault on the informant and her family members, allegedly motivated by longstanding enmity between the parties.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on or about 15.01.2019 at the residence of the informant in Malegaon, Nashik district
- The accused, including Shahaban Dagdu Mansuri, allegedly attacked the informant and her family with sticks and iron rods
- PW-5, an eyewitness, testified that he saw the accused approaching the house carrying weapons and intervened to rescue the family
- PW-2, the primary victim, sustained a fracture of the neck, requiring surgical intervention
- PW-6, a treating physician, confirmed the fracture and opined that the injury was grievous under Section 320 IPC
- PW-7, a surgeon, independently corroborated the nature and severity of the injuries, stating they met the criteria for grievous hurt
- The prosecution established prior enmity between the accused and the complainant family
Procedural History
- 15.01.2019: Alleged incident of assault
- 16.01.2019: FIR registered at Police Station Malegaon
- 07.03.2020: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malegaon, convicted the accused under Sections 324, 34 IPC and sentenced them to three years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-
- 11.07.2024: Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt
- 28.02.2025: State filed Application for Leave to Appeal before the Bombay High Court
- 08.05.2026: Hearing before the High Court; Respondent No. 1 reported deceased; no appearance by any respondent
Relief Sought
The State seeks leave to file a regular appeal against the acquittal order dated 11.07.2024, with a view to restoring the conviction and sentence imposed by the Magistrate.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the acquittal by the Sessions Judge, despite corroborated eyewitness testimony and unimpeached medical evidence of grievous hurt, constitutes a manifest error warranting appellate review under Section 378 CrPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/State
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the Sessions Judge erred in disregarding the consistent and corroborative testimony of four eyewitnesses, including PW-5 who directly witnessed the assault and intervened. The medical evidence from PW-6 and PW-7, both qualified doctors, conclusively established grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC, particularly the fracture of the neck. The Sessions Judge’s conclusion that the evidence was not credible was unsupported and contrary to the record. The State relied on State of Haryana v. Bhagirath and K. S. S. S. S. v. State of Tamil Nadu to argue that appellate courts must not substitute their own view unless the findings are perverse or unsupported.
For the Respondent/State
No appearance was made by any respondent. The service report confirmed that Respondent No. 1 had died, and no counsel appeared for the remaining respondents despite notice.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the findings of both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. It noted that the Magistrate had correctly appreciated the evidence, finding no material contradiction among the eyewitnesses and accepting the medical reports as reliable. The Sessions Judge, however, had acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, without identifying any specific inconsistency or improbability in the testimony.
"It appears that there are four eye-witnesses. Learned Magistrate has held that evidence of these witnesses are corroborative and no contradiction can be found, which can be called fatal."
The Court emphasized that the nature of the injuries - a fracture of the neck requiring surgery - was inherently serious and consistent with grievous hurt. The independent corroboration by two medical professionals further strengthened the prosecution’s case. The Sessions Judge’s acquittal, without pointing to any specific flaw in the evidence, amounted to an erroneous appreciation of facts.
The Court held that where the trial court’s conviction is based on credible, corroborated evidence and the appellate court reverses it without identifying any legal or factual error, the State is entitled to seek leave to appeal. The gravity of the offence, the nature of the injuries, and the absence of any plausible reason for rejecting the evidence collectively satisfied the threshold for granting leave.
The Verdict
The State succeeded. The Court granted leave to appeal and admitted the appeal. The Office is directed to number the appeal. The record and proceedings are to be called for. The acquittal order dated 11.07.2024 stands suspended pending the hearing of the appeal.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Corroborated Eyewitness Testimony Cannot Be Dismissed Arbitrarily
- Practitioners must argue that acquittals based on vague assertions of "lack of credibility" without identifying specific contradictions are legally unsustainable
- Courts must distinguish between minor inconsistencies and material contradictions that go to the root of the case
- Where multiple independent witnesses corroborate key events, the burden shifts to the appellate court to justify reversal
Medical Evidence Must Be Given Weight Unless Discredited
- Uncontroverted medical reports from qualified professionals, especially those detailing fractures or injuries classified as grievous, form a strong evidentiary pillar
- Courts cannot ignore or discount such evidence unless there is a clear reason to doubt the authenticity or competence of the report
- In grievous hurt cases, medical evidence often provides objective corroboration that eyewitness testimony alone cannot supply
Leave to Appeal Is a Remedy Against Perverse Acquittals
- Section 378 CrPC empowers the State to seek leave where acquittals are based on erroneous appreciation of evidence
- This judgment reaffirms that leave is not a mere formality - it is a safeguard against miscarriages of justice
- Practitioners should routinely move for leave where acquittals ignore corroborative evidence, particularly in cases involving serious physical injury
