Criminal Law – Section 326 IPC – Conviction for Grievous Hurt – Revisional Jurisdiction

1. Settlement Between Parties: The Court considered an amicable settlement between close relatives in a case involving family disputes over water sharing.
2. Deficient Evidence: Conviction under Section 326 IPC set aside due to lack of substantive evidence, inconsistencies in witness testimonies, and absence of recovery of the alleged weapon.
3. Non-Compoundable Offense: Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC to account for the settlement despite the non-compoundable nature of the offense.

4. Amicable Settlement (Para 5-10):

   • The accused (Applicant) and the victim (PW-5) are close blood relatives.
   • Parties reached an amicable settlement, confirmed through affidavits filed by the victim.
   • Court acknowledged the settlement but noted Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable.

5. Inconsistencies in Evidence (Para 11-17):

   • Prosecution's case weakened by the absence of recovery of the alleged iron rod.
   • Independent witness (PW-3) contradicted prosecution claims, stating that the accused did not cause injury.
   • Medical evidence lacked corroboration; injury could also have resulted from an accidental fall.

6. Judicial Analysis and Findings (Para 18-23):

   • The judgments by the lower courts failed to adhere to the principles of criminal jurisprudence.
   • Both judgments quashed due to lack of cogent evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
   • Applicant was ordered to be released forthwith.

1. Introduction of the Case (Para 1-2)

• Criminal Revision Application (CRA) challenging concurrent judgments convicting the Applicant under Section 326 IPC.
• Conviction entailed one-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000.

2. Incident Description (Para 4.1 - 4.2)

• A family quarrel over drawing water escalated into a physical altercation.
• The accused allegedly caused a head injury to the victim using an iron rod.

3. Prosecution Case and Evidence (Para 4.3)

• FIR filed against four accused; Applicant convicted while others were acquitted.
• Evidence relied heavily on medical reports and testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5.

4. Defense and Witness Testimonies (Para 7-17)

• Defense argued the injury was not caused intentionally or with a weapon.
• PW-3, an independent witness, did not support the prosecution’s case.
• Medical evidence lacked critical supporting documentation like X-rays or C-T scan reports.

5. Legal Findings and Observations (Para 18-23)

• The Court noted deficiencies in evidence and inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimonies.
• Independent witness contradicted the prosecution’s claims, aligning with the defense.
• The case was settled amicably, and parties had no grievances.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Section 326 IPC: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
2. Section 323 IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt (lesser offense compared to Section 326 IPC).
3. Section 397 and Section 482 Cr.PC: Revisional and inherent powers of the Court for ensuring justice.

Ratio Decidendi:

Conviction under Section 326 IPC cannot be sustained without:

1. Recovery and corroboration of the alleged weapon.
2. Independent and credible witness testimonies supporting the prosecution's narrative.
3. Evidence that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Subjects:

Criminal Law, Revisional Jurisdiction, Evidence Evaluation, Non-Compoundable Offense, Family Disputes.

Section 326 IPC, Criminal Revision, Family Settlement, Evidence Inconsistency, Grievous Hurt, Bombay High Court, Amicable Settlement.