Reaffirming the necessity of credible ocular and medical corroboration in IPC assault cases; High Court of Chhattisgarh affirms acquittal and binds subordinate courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/15/2023 of STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs LALIT KUMAR SHAU |
| CNR | CGHC010011702023 |
| Date of Registration | 09-01-2023 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent on assessment of ocular and medical evidence |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – IPC (Sections 294, 506 Part II, 324) & CrPC (Section 378 appeal) |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction can stand when prosecution evidence has serious disparities, key witnesses turn hostile, and there is no medical corroboration? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that conviction under Sections 294, 506(Part II) and 324 IPC cannot be sustained in the face of significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s account, hostile testimony from key eyewitnesses on both assault and weapon recovery, and absence of medical–legal evidence such as an MLC report or doctor’s testimony. The trial court’s reliance on uncorroborated and self-contradictory testimony was held to be legally improper, rendering acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt both lawful and proper. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | The court applied the principle that criminal conviction must rest on reliable ocular and medical evidence, and that discrepancies or hostility by witnesses undermine prosecution’s case beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Complainant alleged assault with an iron axe and filthy abuse on 25/09/2015; one eyewitness (PW-1) did not support assault or abuse; complainant’s brother (PW-3) spoke of bleeding but no MLC or doctor; two seizure witnesses turned hostile on weapon recovery. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44683; CNR CGHC010011702023 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Even sole testimony of a complainant cannot sustain conviction where it contains material disparities and is uncorroborated.
- Hostile testimony by key eyewitnesses on both assault and weapon recovery vitiates prosecution’s case.
- Absence of an MLC report and doctor’s evidence negates reliance on ocular testimony of bleeding.
- Disparities between the FIR narrative and subsequent testimony undermine credibility.
- This ruling can be cited to resist conviction where prosecution evidence is uncorroborated and witnesses turn hostile.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The trial court noted material discrepancies in the complainant’s testimony regarding who intercepted the assault.
- The principal eyewitness (Mangleen Bai) turned hostile and denied seeing the assault or hearing abuse.
- The complainant’s brother mentioned bleeding but no medical-legal report or doctor was produced.
- Seizure witnesses disowned the recovery of the alleged weapon.
- In absence of reliable ocular or medical corroboration, prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
- Acquittal was legally valid; appeal under Section 378 CrPC lacked merit.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
State: Preferred appeal under Section 378 CrPC questioning the legality and propriety of the trial court’s order of acquittal.
Factual Background
On 25/09/2015 the complainant alleged that the respondent assaulted him with an iron “Tangdi” and used filthy language after a dispute at a Lord Ganesha installation. The complainant claimed injuries to his waist, allegedly witnessed by Mangleen Bai and others, and reported he underwent medical examination. A weapon was said to be recovered from the respondent on 26/09/2015 in presence of two seizure witnesses.
Statutory Analysis
- Offences charged: Sections 294 (obscene acts), 506(Part II) (criminal intimidation), and 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon).
- Appeal provision: Section 378 CrPC (appeal by the State against acquittal).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing standards for corroboration and hostile witnesses affirmed.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44683 (High Court of Chhattisgarh)
- CNR CGHC010011702023