Conviction Under Section 323 IPC Cannot Be Sustained Without Proving Nature of Injury: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused in Absence of Medical Evidence

“Hurt Must Be Proven By Establishing Bodily Pain, Disease, or Infirmity – Mere Allegation of Assault Not Enough”, In a notable reaffirmation of the fundamental evidentiary requirement under Section 323 IPC, the Orissa High Court set aside the conviction of four persons in a 26-year-old case on the ground that no medical evidence was produced to establish that any ‘hurt’ as defined under Section 319 IPC had actually been caused.

Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed that “the prosecution failed to prove the nature and extent of the injury by leading appropriate evidence”, which is fatal to sustaining a conviction under Section 323 IPC.

"Although P.W.1 and P.W.4 have deposed that they were assaulted by the accused persons, the nature of injury has not been established... In absence of medical evidence, and specific attribution of overt acts to individual accused, the conviction cannot be sustained," the Court ruled.

The appellants had been convicted and sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment by the Special Judge, Keonjhar in Special Case No. 19 of 1999 for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 IPC, while being acquitted of all other charges, including those under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Prosecution Evidence Uncorroborated, Non-Specific, and Unsupported by Medical Testimony

The High Court meticulously examined the evidence of all five prosecution witnesses, noting that none of them were cross-examined by the defence, and that no medical officer or investigating officer was examined during the trial. This, the Court held, created a significant gap in the evidentiary chain required to convict under Section 323.

While P.W.1 (the informant) and P.W.4 (her husband) both claimed they were assaulted, the Court pointed out that the injuries alleged were not medically established, nor was any medical report or doctor’s deposition produced to corroborate their claims.

The Court relied on the definition of “hurt” under Section 319 IPC, which states:

“Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.”

The Court further observed: “Section 323 IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt, but when the element of ‘hurt’ itself is not proven by medical or at least trustworthy ocular evidence establishing the pain, disease or infirmity, conviction under the section becomes unsustainable.”

Cites Kerala and Patna High Court Rulings on Infirmity of 323 IPC Convictions Without Proof of Injury

To fortify its conclusion, the High Court placed reliance on multiple precedents, including Padmakumar v. State of Kerala [2024:KER:81929], where the Kerala High Court had held that unless bodily pain, disease or infirmity is proved to have been caused by the accused, a conviction under Section 323 cannot be upheld.

Similarly, in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 92 of 2016, the Patna High Court ruled:

“For want of any proof regarding injury, the whole case of the prosecution fails not only under Section 307 but even under Section 323 of the IPC.”

In light of these rulings, the Orissa High Court concluded that “the blurred nature of evidence regarding the nature of injury is fatal to the prosecution.”

No Attribution of Specific Role or Overt Act to Individual Accused

The Court further found fault with the non-specific and collective nature of the allegations made against the four accused persons. The prosecution failed to provide any individual overt act committed by each appellant during the alleged assault.

“None of the witnesses have specifically attributed anything against each accused-appellant. In absence of specific evidence alleging overt acts against each of them... it is quite impossible to nail down individual culpability under Section 323,” the Court held.

Non-Examination of Investigating Officer Adds to Evidentiary Deficiency

The non-examination of the Investigating Officer further weakened the prosecution’s case. While the trial court had downplayed this omission by relying on Ashok Kumar Jena v. State [(1994) 2 Crimes (Orissa) 1008] and Raj Kishore v. State of Bihar [2006 (26) OCR (SC) 891], the High Court took a different view in context.

Justice Mishra observed: “Non-examination of the IO, when coupled with absence of medical evidence and vague witness testimony, cumulatively weakens the prosecution’s version to the point of doubt.”

Trial Court’s Conviction Order Set Aside, Benefit of Doubt Granted

The High Court ultimately concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the injured witnesses, being unsupported by medical corroboration and lacking specific attribution, was insufficient to justify a conviction.

“The inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution could not prove the case individually against each of the accused-appellants... Hence, I am inclined to grant the benefit of doubt,” the Court held.

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.07.2007 was set aside. The appellants were acquitted and their bail bonds discharged.

Date of Decision: 23rd December 2025