Absence Of Radiological Proof: Punjab & Haryana High Court Says Charges For Grievous Hurt Cannot Be Predicated On Mere Clinical Opinion

"Classification of injuries under the code is not a matter of judicial caprice but a matter of scientific determination. In the absence of radiological proof, Courts must exercise great caution in recording a finding of 'fracture'," Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a significant judgment, has held that charges for 'grievous hurt' under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot be framed solely on the basis of clinical opinion in the absence of radiological evidence.

A bench of Justice Sumeet Goel observed that for an injury to be classified as a fracture or dislocation under Section 320 of the IPC, the prosecution must produce clear, objective medical proof rather than relying on the ipse dixit of a doctor.

The case arose from two connected criminal revision petitions challenging a trial court order that framed charges under Sections 323, 325, 331, 341, 201, and 34 of the IPC against the accused persons. The complainant, an advocate, alleged he was assaulted on August 27, 2023, resulting in various injuries, including a dental injury where a tooth was extracted nearly two and a half months after the incident. While the initial medical reports classified the injuries as simple, the trial court framed charges for grievous hurt based on the subsequent tooth extraction.

The primary question before the court was whether a charge under Section 325 (Grievous Hurt) could be sustained when the initial medical opinion categorized the injuries as 'simple' and the alleged fracture/dislocation occurred months later. The court also examined whether the essential ingredients for Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) and Section 379-B (Snatching) were made out based on the available material.

Standard Of Proof At The Stage Of Framing Charges

The Court emphasized that while the standard of proof for framing charges is that of 'prima facie case' and 'strong suspicion,' such suspicion must be founded on tangible material. Relying on the decision in Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs. State of Haryana (2024), the Court noted that a Judge is not a mere post office of the prosecution. The Court is duty-bound to sift through the material to determine if the element of criminality is clearly present or if the trial would amount to an abuse of process.

"The Court ought to consider the broad probabilities of the case. If the allegations are patently absurd or inherently improbable, the continuation of the trial is an abuse of the process of Court/law leading to injustice."

Radiological Proof Essential For Finding Of Fracture

Adverting to the medical reality of the case, the Court observed that clinical findings alone are insufficient to establish a fracture or dislocation of a tooth under Section 320 (vii) of the IPC. Referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mayur Panabhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat (1982), the bench held that without supporting material like X-ray plates or radiological reports, the opinion of a doctor cannot conclusively establish a fracture.

"Unless the fact of fracture can be proved by evidence which is so glaring and obvious, it would be extremely unsafe to hold that the prosecution has proved fracture in the absence of radiological evidence."

The Doctrine Of Causa Causans In Criminal Jurisprudence

The High Court scrutinized the 'temporal proximity' between the alleged assault on August 27, 2023, and the tooth extraction performed on November 10, 2023. Justice Goel held that a protracted interval of over two months, in the absence of an unbroken chain of medical corroboration, severely attenuates the nexus between the assault and the eventual extraction. In the realm of criminal law, the consequence complained of must be the direct, immediate, and natural result of the act alleged.

"The law does not take cognizance of remote or intervening causes. A protracted interval, in the absence of an unbroken chain of medical corroboration, renders the connection speculative rather than substantive."

Attempt To Murder Charge Cannot Be Anchored On Conjectures

Regarding the complainant's plea to add Section 307 (Attempt to Murder), the Court held that the essential ingredients of mens rea (intent) and actus reus (overt act) were conspicuously absent. Citing Roshan Lal vs. The State of Haryana (2026), the Court noted that a charge under Section 307 cannot be anchored upon 'flights of fancy' or 'hyper-hyperbole.' Grafting such a grave charge onto a factual foundation of purely simple injuries would amount to a patent misapplication of law.

"To graft a charge of Section 307 IPC onto a factual foundation of purely simple injuries would amount to a patent misapplication of law and an exercise in reductio ad absurdum."

Absence Of Causal Link For Sections 325 And 331 IPC

The Court found that since the prosecution failed to establish a causal link between the assault and the subsequent tooth dislocation, the foundational facts required to invoke Section 320 were missing. Consequently, the charge under Section 331 (causing grievous hurt to extort confession) was also unsustainable. The Court held that the factual matrix would, at best, attract Section 330 (causing simple hurt for extortion) instead of Section 331.

The High Court modified the impugned order of the trial court, directing that the petitioners be arraigned for offences under Sections 323 (Simple Hurt) and 330 (Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession) instead of Sections 325 and 331. The charges under Sections 341, 201, 506, and 34 of the IPC were maintained. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the legality of the framing of charges and should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the final merits of the case.

Date of Decision: May 29, 2026