Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The counsel for the applicant contends that in the present case, the appellate Court itself arrived at a conclusion that there was contradictions in the testimony of the complainant (PW-1) and her version regarding injury was totally contradictory to the description of the injury given by Dr. Surendra Varkade (PW-6). It is contended that this anomaly, which goes to the root of the prosecution's case, was discussed by the trial Court in Paragraph-13 and also by the appellate Court but both the Courts below have observed that mentioning of injury on the right side of the cheek, right hand and right side of the neck of the complainant was the bonafide human error committed by the Doctor concerned. It is also contended that the appellate Court has further observed that the injury pertaining to teeth was an old injury and the present applicant was sought to be connected with the said injury while alleging that the upper tooth of the complainant got broken as the present applicant inflicted fist blow on the mouth of the complainant. It is further contended that in the present case when the factum of injury was not supported by Dr. Surendra Varkade (PW-6), there was no occasion to convict the applicant under Section 323 of the IPC by the appellate Court. The appellate Court was required to appreciate the testimony of Dr. Surendra Varkade (PW-6) wherein he has stated that the injuries could be self inflicted. It is asserted that the appellate Court also grossly erred in arriving at the finding in Paragraph 37 that as per the MLC Form, the injuries were NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:60017 4 CRR-4077-2024 sustained by the complainant on left cheek and left side of the neck but Dr. Surendra Varkade (PW-6) stated that the injuries were sustained by the complainant on the right side. As the appellate Court itself expressed suspicion regarding injuries pertaining to teeth as per discussion made in Paragraphs 41, 42 and 43 of the judgment of the appellate Court, the entire case of the prosecution turns automatically out to be suspicious in regard to remaining injuries, which were minor abrasions. It is submitted that in such eventuality, the judgment of conviction passed by the appellate Court is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the offence under Section 323 of the IPC.

12. The appellate Court in the present case has discussed the factum of the injuries, which according to the prosecution, were found on the person of the complainant (PW-1). The injuries have been discussed in Paragraph 35 of the judgment of the appellate Court. A perusal of the same reflects that there were five abrasions, two contusions and injury No. 8 reflects that the teeth of the complainant was broken. The complainant (PW-1) in her testimony stated that as a result of the incident, she had sustained injury on left side of her neck, left cheek and also on her left hand. This statement of the complainant (PW-1) is specific and contrary to the statement of the complainant (PW-1), Dr. Surendra Varkade (PW-6), who stated in his testimony that he had found the injuries on the right side of the person of the injured i.e. right side of the neck, right hand and right cheek. The trial court in Paragraph 13, concluded that such lapse regarding location of the injuries was immaterial and same was a bonafide human error. The appellate Court also in Paragraph 37 further mentioned that perhaps on account of the Doctor NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:60017 6 CRR-4077-2024 being over burdened with heavy work, the said mistake was crept up, which was clerical and a human error.