Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 325 and 326 – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt – On facts, appellant-school teacher assaulted a second class student with wooden stick resulting in loss of eye sight on the left eye – Acquittal by the trial court on the ground of contradictions in the evidence of eye witnesses, student being tutored before examination and delay in lodging of FIR – However, the High Court convicted the appellant u/s. 326 – On appeal, held: Evidence of the injured student cannot be discarded on the ground that he was tutored about the occurrence before the examination – He was apprised about the court’s proceedings as he was not conversant with the same – There were no contradictions in the evidence of the eye-witnesses as they were supported by the evidence of the father of another student – Evidence of eye witnesses was consistent throughout – However, there being no evidence that the stick wielded by the appellant was a dangerous weapon, conviction of the appellant u/s. 326 is not warranted – Thus, the conviction modified to one u/s. 325 and sentence of imprisonment reduced to one year – Evidence.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The evidence of PW-2 injured-child witness in his cross examination stated that the admitted suggestions put to him by the defence counsel that he was tutored, the same cannot be the reason for discarding the evidence of PW-2. When PW-2 was examined in the Court some time after the occurrence, being a child witness(PW-2) who is not conversant with the court’s proceedings, has to be necessarily apprised about the court’s proceedings and that he has to speak about the occurrence. It cannot be said that he was tutored about the occurrence itself to depose against the appellant. [Para 9][153-B-C]
1.2 The contradiction pointed out between the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4, who were examined as eye witnesses, do not affect the version of PW-3 and PW-4 and their credibility, more so, when their evidence is supported by PW-5 who is father of another student studying in the same school who has also stated about the assault by the appellant on PW-2 with the stick and that PW-2 sat down holding his eye with hands. [Para 10][153-D-E]
1.3 The High Court rightly held that evidence of P.Ws 3 to
5 has been consistent through out. Their evidence is also supported by the medical evidence of medical officers and doctors. Upon appreciation of evidence, the High Court rightly reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant. [Para 11][153F]
1.4 Though the stick wielded by the appellant has been marked as MO1, there is no material to show that the stick that was wielded by the appellant was a dangerous weapon. In the absence of such evidence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 326 may not be warranted; but the offence would fall under Section 325 IPC, “voluntarily causing grievous hurt”. The conviction of the appellant under Section 326 IPC is modified to conviction under Section 325 IPC. Coming to the quantum of sentence, the occurrence was of the year 1996. Keeping in view the passage of time and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to one year with additional fine of Rs.50,000/- . [Paras 12, 13][153-G-H; 154-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.