Medical Evidence Of Nature Of Injury Prevails Over Victim's Ocular Evidence: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Conviction U/S 324 IPC

The Calcutta High Court has recently set aside a conviction under Section 324 of the IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) by observing that the medical evidence pertaining to the nature of the injury sustained would prevail over the ocular evidence of the victim. 

Justice Bibek Chaudhuri was adjudicating upon an appeal moved against an order of conviction passed by the concerned trial court under Section 324 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment imposed for a term of one year along with a fine of Rs.1,000 and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for further 3 months.

In the instant case, a police complaint had been filed by one Mosiluddin Ahmed that on August 7, 2016 alleging, inter alia, that on August 6, 2016 at about 7:45 p.m his younger brother Serajuddin Ahmed (P.W.4) was returning from mosque after observing Namaz when the appellant along with others wrongly restrained him and assaulted him on his head with iron rod and Hasua with the intention to kill him. As a result of the assault, the brother of the de-facto complainant was seriously injured, it was alleged. 

Pursuant to a perusal of the rival submissions, the Court acknowledged that in case of discrepancy between ocular and medical evidence, ocular testimony shall prevail because the medical evidence is in the nature of an expert's opinion.

However, the Court opined that it cannot be denied that the victim (P.W.4) had received cut injury on his head but in order to ascertain the nature of injury, the evidence of expert can only be relied upon. 

"The Court cannot deny that P.W.4 received cut injury on his head but in order to ascertain the nature of injury, the evidence of expert can only be relied on. When the medical officer stated that P.W.4 sustained lacerated injury, the said injury cannot be treated as incised wound on the basis of ocular testimony of P.W.4", the Court observed. 

The Court further observed that if the victim had been assaulted with the help of a Hasua on his head, there would have been an incised wound whoever no such incised wound was found on his head. Thus, it was held that when the allegation of the prosecution is that the appellant had assaulted the victim with a hasua, in the absence incised cut injury, the appellant cannot be connected with the injury sustained by the victim. 

Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of conviction by observing, 

"Therefore, in my considered view, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and the learned Trial Judge ought to have recorded an order of acquittal in favour of the appellant."

Case Title: Aminul Islam @ Amenur Molla v. The State of West Bengal

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 168

Click Here To Read/Download Order