Clean-Cut Wound Is Not a Human Bite: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Grievous Hurt Case Over Medical-Evidence Mismatch

In a dramatic reversal of two concurrent findings, the Himachal Pradesh High Court setting aside the conviction of two men who had been sentenced under Sections 341, 323, 326 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Justice Rakesh Kainthla held that the Trial and Appellate Courts failed to appreciate glaring contradictions between the medical and ocular evidence, and convicted the accused without lawful basis.

Calling out the core defect in the prosecution’s case, the Court observed,
“Clean-cut wounds are not the result of human teeth bites. No pattern, abrasion or semicircular mark typically associated with human bite injuries was found on the victim.”

Medical Evidence Destroys the Prosecution Story of Biting Assault

The informant, Dharam Dass, alleged that on the evening of 23rd May 2006, he was stopped by Rajinder Kumar and Shammi Kapoor near Gugga Maadi Ground, Sabathu, where Rajinder questioned him about the repayment of ₹700. A scuffle ensued, during which, as per his version, Shammi Kapoor bit off part of his right ear and bit his right cheek, causing grievous injuries.

But the medical officer, Dr. Balbir Singh (PW-6), found no signs of biting. Instead, he described the injuries as “clean-cut wounds”—sharp, defined, and without any abrasions or bruising. The court took note of standard forensic literature and stated:

“Bite marks are elliptical or circular with distinct impressions of upper and lower teeth. Such characteristics were completely absent.”

Further, the cheek injury was also a sharp wound, not a bruise, and lacked any teeth pattern. The Court thus concluded that “the medical evidence not only failed to support the prosecution—it directly contradicted it.”

Eyewitness Fails to Inspire Confidence — Brother’s Presence Found Fabricated

The prosecution relied heavily on Amar Dass (PW-4), the informant’s brother, who claimed to have witnessed the incident and later accompanied the victim to the police station and hospital. But his version collapsed under cross-examination and documentary contradictions.

The Court noted that both the police constable (PW-5) and the informant himself stated they were alone when the complaint was made and when they went to the hospital. The Court held:

“If Amar Dass had really witnessed the incident, it is unthinkable that he would not accompany his brother to the hospital. His absence, as confirmed by police and informant, proves he was not at the scene.”

The other claimed eyewitness, Binda Ram (PW-8), was declared hostile and explicitly stated that “nothing happened in his presence”, thereby offering no support to the informant’s version.

“Revisional Court Is Not a Forum for Second Appeal, But Must Intervene in Face of Patent Error”

The High Court invoked a catena of decisions, including Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, to reinforce the principle that a revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or legally unsustainable.

But in this case, the Court noted: “The trial court and appellate court both ignored the fundamental contradiction between the medical and oral evidence. They relied on testimonies which were either fabricated or not corroborated. Such a conviction cannot be permitted to stand.”

The Court further held that “the clothes allegedly recovered with blood stains were never sent to forensic lab. The recovery thus carries no evidentiary value.”

“Financial Motive Behind False Implication Cannot Be Ignored” — Civil Dispute Adds to Doubt

The informant owed money to accused Rajinder Kumar. This financial dispute formed the backdrop of the incident. The Court reasoned:

“The existence of a strained relationship provided a clear motive for false implication. When the only eyewitnesses are discredited, and the medical evidence disapproves the manner of assault, such motive assumes significance.”

Conviction Reversed After 19 Years — Trial and Appellate Courts Found to Have Ignored Law and Evidence

The High Court ultimately held that the learned courts below failed to apply settled principles of criminal law, particularly the importance of corroboration and consistency between medical and ocular evidence. It declared:

“Learned courts below took a view which could not have been taken based on the evidence placed before them, and such a view must be interfered with while exercising revisional jurisdiction.”

The Court acquitted Shammi Kapoor and Rajinder Kumar, directing that they be released upon furnishing bail bonds under Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

Date of Decision: 20th August 2025