Court’s Decision
The Calcutta High Court, in Ahok Chakraborty @ Khokan & Anr. v. State of West Bengal, upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 325 IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt but modified the sentence of three years’ imprisonment. Citing the absence of prior criminal history and the passage of 12 years since the incident, the Court extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, directing the appellants to furnish bonds for good behavior instead of undergoing imprisonment.
Facts
The case originated from an FIR lodged on 31 July 2003 by the husband of the injured woman, alleging that the appellants attacked his wife and minor son with sharp weapons due to political rivalry. The victims were hospitalized for serious injuries, including head trauma and fractures. The wife was affiliated with the SUCI party and had contested local elections. A dispute over tree-cutting the previous day allegedly triggered the assault.
The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 325 IPC (grievous hurt) and sentenced them to three years in prison. This appeal was filed against the conviction and sentence.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved the charge of grievous hurt beyond reasonable doubt?
- Whether the appellants were falsely implicated due to political and personal enmity?
- Whether the sentence under Section 325 IPC required modification given the circumstances?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The defence claimed that the victims sustained injuries by falling from a bamboo bridge (“Sanko”) while fleeing after attacking appellant no. 1, who had sustained injuries himself. They highlighted:
- No recovery of weapons.
- No eyewitness to the actual assault.
- No forensic evidence like blood-stained clothes or earth.
- Prior enmity due to a tree-cutting dispute.
- Delay in recording statements of victims.
- Appellant no. 1 had a pending complaint against the de facto complainant’s wife.
The appellants thus sought acquittal or at least modification of the sentence.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the appeal, asserting:
- The evidence of injured victims and eyewitnesses clearly established the assault.
- Multiple medical reports confirmed fractures and head injuries.
- The attack was politically motivated, as the victim had contested elections and lodged a prior police diary against the accused.
- The sequence of medical treatment and corroborative eyewitness accounts supported the prosecution’s case.
Analysis of the Law
Section 325 IPC pertains to voluntarily causing grievous hurt. For its application:
- The hurt must qualify under Section 320 IPC.
- Fractures and injuries endangering life or impairing body parts fall under this.
The Court examined detailed medical evidence and testimonies of injured witnesses and doctors. Fractures in the forearm and skull, extra-dural hematoma, and prolonged hospitalization satisfied the criteria of “grievous hurt”.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand [(2004) 7 SCC 659], where the Supreme Court extended the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act due to the long passage of time and absence of previous criminal record. Similarly, in the present case, the Court applied Section 4 of the Act, noting that offences under Section 325 IPC are eligible for such relief when the offender is not a repeat convict.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das observed that:
“Enmity is a double-edged weapon… because of enmity false cases are made… on the other hand enmity makes relation bitter which may even go up to serious offences like murder.”
The Court found the testimonies of the injured and witnesses cogent and corroborated by medical records. The injuries could not be explained as mere accidental falls. While the prosecution failed to prove use of dangerous weapons under Section 326 IPC, the evidence supported conviction under Section 325 IPC.
However, the Court took note of:
- The 12-year delay since the incident,
- Absence of prior criminal record,
- The “spur-of-the-moment” nature of the crime,
- The appellants’ partial incarceration.
It concluded that these were fit grounds to extend probationary relief under the 1958 Act.
Conclusion
The High Court:
- Sustained the conviction under Section 325 IPC.
- Modified the sentence from 3 years to 2 years.
- Directed the appellants to be released on probation by executing bonds of ₹5,000 each, ensuring good behavior for two years.
- Warned that breach of the bond would lead to incarceration.
Implications
This judgment affirms that:
- Even when convictions are sustained, the sentence can be modified in view of reformatory principles under the Probation of Offenders Act.
- Courts are willing to consider long passage of time, lack of criminal history, and the nature of offence when deciding sentences.
- Medical evidence and timely treatment records can outweigh minor procedural lapses or hostile witnesses.
Summary of Precedent Cited
State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand: The Supreme Court extended the benefit of probation due to the age of the case, trivial nature of the dispute, and absence of criminal intent—used here to justify releasing the appellants on probation after 12 years.